Driving, home from work this morning NPR reported that starting at 12am January 1st, 2011 (less then 18 hours from now) a baby boomer will become eligible for Social Security & Medicare every 8 seconds.
That same news half hour the BBC reported that a new study revealed that 1/5th of UK citizens are expected to live to 100 years old. And this has the government in a panic because at 65 all Brits are guaranteed a state pension, and less then half of current workers over 50 have any private retirement savings.
My point this morning is yes, the US (& Western Europe as a whole) needs to implement a Paul Ryan style road map, immediately. But even more then that, our culture simply must move away from the entire premise of government central planning as the means of providing life's essentials.
No matter how well intentioned, it simply can not work long term.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Phew...
I'm slugging through the campaign mode of COD:BO... and it isn't easy at all. I can't imagine doing this in "veteran" mode... wow.
Still, I'm getting more and more confident with my controller abilities and I'm looking forward to trying out the "Live" option very soon (as soon as we can get another controller, that is). This is a far more "ergonomically correct" controller than the damn Wii remote (Wii-mote, I think is the term), so it isn't such a long walk for me.
Might be a long night tonight... hehe.
Still, I'm getting more and more confident with my controller abilities and I'm looking forward to trying out the "Live" option very soon (as soon as we can get another controller, that is). This is a far more "ergonomically correct" controller than the damn Wii remote (Wii-mote, I think is the term), so it isn't such a long walk for me.
Might be a long night tonight... hehe.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
XBOX 360
As we have had one & been participating in online gaming for about 4 years now, I thought I'd respond.
But first, Clark County Nevada (last I checked some weeks ago) has a dubious 2 tier distinction. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation (in fact the state of Nevada is #1), at 14.7%. In addition, the County has the highest foreclosure rate - 1 in every 48 homes are in some stage of foreclosure. Making Harry Reid's reelection all the more embarrassing as a Nevadan. This county was the fastest growing during boom times, people got over leveraged, and this is the correction. The difference between us and PA is our tax structure is much, much lower. In fact, the state Constitution requires putting a ballot question to the people before raising any state wide tax. The legislature is simply powerless to raise taxes. Wanna guess how the last few tax hike ballot initiatives went? The new governor is cutting, and cutting deep. They have no alternative. So at least we have a path out ... that is if Obamacare etc mandates don't cripple our recovery. The irony for the White House is the national numbers that are improving ever so slightly are based on the contribution of fiscally conservative red states (NV, with its gross spending prior to the bust is not among them, despite their tax rates). While the blue states, which are a microcosm of what Obama's ideology dictates be done nationally, continue to drag those national numbers down ... with any sane press corps this would be made obvious daily, if not hourly.
To the games!
Ok, a few notations, as you are new to this. And by the way, I'm just an adjunct professor in this realm, my eldest son is the Dean. The COD series is one of the best 2 out there (along with Modern Warfare). I prefer COD (as does the dean), because it is historically based. The one before Black Ops was set during WWII. You could play as a member of the US Military or the Red Army, and pursue the Huns accordingly. In the recent addition you are pushing back against the forces of Communism. The entire opening is a history lesson with real black and white footage. Your first assignment is to assassinate Fidel Castro. Now this "mode", referred to as "story mode" is not an option available online. The online mode available is referred to as "co-op", "multiplayer" or simply "versus" mode. The graphics, weapons, real time action, its all the same except it is simply a versus mode, no mission to kill Castro, no story line. You can play against each other in death matches (capture the flag, kill totals, etc) 1 on 1, 6 on 6, even 9 on 9 depending on that particular "versus" game (as I said, capture the flag, search and destroy, team death match etc, etc). In short the online mode is squad on squad, whether its a squad of 1 or 9 (18 total players are allowed).
Now, if that's what you're interested in, yes, online groups form cohesive squads or "clans" as they're referred to. Their rank is displayed next to their name so you know going in how good the opposing squad is. And the technology is incredible - you plug an operator's headset into the controller itself, put it on, and speak in real time to members of your squad around the world. My boy and his peer aged cousin in MS chat & play regularly, 1,900 miles away. In fact with the new Xbox Kinect device (added to the xbox itself), they have gone as far as not needing a controller for some games (a limited amount). You literally page through the selections on Netflix etc, and the console menu options with a wave of your hand, much like Downey went over his blue prints in Iron Man (we didn't purchase that feature yet, not enough games within it to make it a viable option). At any rate, let me warn you. Out of roughly 300 matches I've played against my 11 year old, I've won maybe 5. Our (the Bund's) collective strategy, abilities, tactics, etc are only as good as our physical ability to steady a controller, bring a weapon up, fire, and aim with deadly accuracy. He can snipe me from a football field away before I can cycle my weapon ... I'm just saying. Our abilities would only be brought to bare after hours upon hours of practice - in other words, familiarity with your weapon(s) of choice.
If you prefer "strategy" over action, with still copious levels of blood spilling (but for a cause), Assassins Creed may well serve that function (there are 3 in the series thus far). Strategy is a real and present feature of that game, and the newest addition, "Assassins Creed: Brotherhood" (we just got it for Christmas) may prove our (the Bund's) best chance to play simultaneously. Combating the Knights Templar set on owning Medieval Europe up to modern day is the storyline here. It's also chalked full of all kinds of history that most gamers probably don't give a second thought.
What I'm surprised you football nuts haven't stumbled across (and that description is rapidly one I'm becoming familiar with) is the Madden series, the latest addition being Madden 11. Up to 4 players can engage in a game (up to 2 per team), with the team of their choice, talk to each other (trash talk that is, hehe). The graphics, play options, coaching ability are all the football equivalent to COD. And as an online member you get real time updates. When they're traded in real life, they're automatically traded within your game. Injuries, suspensions, they're all real time updated within the system.And the team's individual strengths are based on the real world team's ability/record. Again, the controller use takes a little getting used to, but my record versus the kids is much better then in other games.
At any rate, go online and play a few rounds of COD, get a feel for the competition (it's steep). Heck, text me your household's online call sign, we'll add you as a friend and when your household goes online we will be automatically notified if we're playing (and vice versa). Instant chat, messaging, live communication, its all available no matter what game you're playing, etc. And now that we all have the same console we can even link up and host a Netflix "party" - simultaneously watch a movie or any other selection. Simply add the 360 as a device under your Netflix account (you're allowed up to 5 devices).
Let me know ... and have fun!
But first, Clark County Nevada (last I checked some weeks ago) has a dubious 2 tier distinction. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation (in fact the state of Nevada is #1), at 14.7%. In addition, the County has the highest foreclosure rate - 1 in every 48 homes are in some stage of foreclosure. Making Harry Reid's reelection all the more embarrassing as a Nevadan. This county was the fastest growing during boom times, people got over leveraged, and this is the correction. The difference between us and PA is our tax structure is much, much lower. In fact, the state Constitution requires putting a ballot question to the people before raising any state wide tax. The legislature is simply powerless to raise taxes. Wanna guess how the last few tax hike ballot initiatives went? The new governor is cutting, and cutting deep. They have no alternative. So at least we have a path out ... that is if Obamacare etc mandates don't cripple our recovery. The irony for the White House is the national numbers that are improving ever so slightly are based on the contribution of fiscally conservative red states (NV, with its gross spending prior to the bust is not among them, despite their tax rates). While the blue states, which are a microcosm of what Obama's ideology dictates be done nationally, continue to drag those national numbers down ... with any sane press corps this would be made obvious daily, if not hourly.
To the games!
Ok, a few notations, as you are new to this. And by the way, I'm just an adjunct professor in this realm, my eldest son is the Dean. The COD series is one of the best 2 out there (along with Modern Warfare). I prefer COD (as does the dean), because it is historically based. The one before Black Ops was set during WWII. You could play as a member of the US Military or the Red Army, and pursue the Huns accordingly. In the recent addition you are pushing back against the forces of Communism. The entire opening is a history lesson with real black and white footage. Your first assignment is to assassinate Fidel Castro. Now this "mode", referred to as "story mode" is not an option available online. The online mode available is referred to as "co-op", "multiplayer" or simply "versus" mode. The graphics, weapons, real time action, its all the same except it is simply a versus mode, no mission to kill Castro, no story line. You can play against each other in death matches (capture the flag, kill totals, etc) 1 on 1, 6 on 6, even 9 on 9 depending on that particular "versus" game (as I said, capture the flag, search and destroy, team death match etc, etc). In short the online mode is squad on squad, whether its a squad of 1 or 9 (18 total players are allowed).
Now, if that's what you're interested in, yes, online groups form cohesive squads or "clans" as they're referred to. Their rank is displayed next to their name so you know going in how good the opposing squad is. And the technology is incredible - you plug an operator's headset into the controller itself, put it on, and speak in real time to members of your squad around the world. My boy and his peer aged cousin in MS chat & play regularly, 1,900 miles away. In fact with the new Xbox Kinect device (added to the xbox itself), they have gone as far as not needing a controller for some games (a limited amount). You literally page through the selections on Netflix etc, and the console menu options with a wave of your hand, much like Downey went over his blue prints in Iron Man (we didn't purchase that feature yet, not enough games within it to make it a viable option). At any rate, let me warn you. Out of roughly 300 matches I've played against my 11 year old, I've won maybe 5. Our (the Bund's) collective strategy, abilities, tactics, etc are only as good as our physical ability to steady a controller, bring a weapon up, fire, and aim with deadly accuracy. He can snipe me from a football field away before I can cycle my weapon ... I'm just saying. Our abilities would only be brought to bare after hours upon hours of practice - in other words, familiarity with your weapon(s) of choice.
If you prefer "strategy" over action, with still copious levels of blood spilling (but for a cause), Assassins Creed may well serve that function (there are 3 in the series thus far). Strategy is a real and present feature of that game, and the newest addition, "Assassins Creed: Brotherhood" (we just got it for Christmas) may prove our (the Bund's) best chance to play simultaneously. Combating the Knights Templar set on owning Medieval Europe up to modern day is the storyline here. It's also chalked full of all kinds of history that most gamers probably don't give a second thought.
What I'm surprised you football nuts haven't stumbled across (and that description is rapidly one I'm becoming familiar with) is the Madden series, the latest addition being Madden 11. Up to 4 players can engage in a game (up to 2 per team), with the team of their choice, talk to each other (trash talk that is, hehe). The graphics, play options, coaching ability are all the football equivalent to COD. And as an online member you get real time updates. When they're traded in real life, they're automatically traded within your game. Injuries, suspensions, they're all real time updated within the system.And the team's individual strengths are based on the real world team's ability/record. Again, the controller use takes a little getting used to, but my record versus the kids is much better then in other games.
At any rate, go online and play a few rounds of COD, get a feel for the competition (it's steep). Heck, text me your household's online call sign, we'll add you as a friend and when your household goes online we will be automatically notified if we're playing (and vice versa). Instant chat, messaging, live communication, its all available no matter what game you're playing, etc. And now that we all have the same console we can even link up and host a Netflix "party" - simultaneously watch a movie or any other selection. Simply add the 360 as a device under your Netflix account (you're allowed up to 5 devices).
Let me know ... and have fun!
Another rant...
Obama is on vacation celebrating the return of the economy to a non-recession status... that according to the guru of economics, Joe Biden himself.
Want to know what I think?
I'm living in a state that still has more than 8% unemployment, one of the highest corporate tax rates, the fifth highest state income tax, and a government that can't make a budget for the last 6 years. I'm forced to relocate closer to work (I'm currently making a 110 mile commute round-trip, each day)... or to another jurisdiction altogether... because the price of gas has remained above $3/gallon for the last 5 months. In my chosen profession, this state has the lowest compensation rate of any other state that has gaming... which means I could move to almost ANY other state, do the same job, and get more money. I can't blame this on my employer entirely, because the state charges a 53% tax rate on slot revenue and a 21% rate on table revenue, which drives the cost of running the joint higher than anywhere else in the country.
PA is a microcosm of what Obama wants the rest of the country to be... and even our out-going Governor says so (Ed Rendell, if you wanted to check). If Wall Street and the rest of the economic machine that drives our country wonders what such designs can do for the rest of the country...
Come to PA and see what its like.
Want to know what I think?
I'm living in a state that still has more than 8% unemployment, one of the highest corporate tax rates, the fifth highest state income tax, and a government that can't make a budget for the last 6 years. I'm forced to relocate closer to work (I'm currently making a 110 mile commute round-trip, each day)... or to another jurisdiction altogether... because the price of gas has remained above $3/gallon for the last 5 months. In my chosen profession, this state has the lowest compensation rate of any other state that has gaming... which means I could move to almost ANY other state, do the same job, and get more money. I can't blame this on my employer entirely, because the state charges a 53% tax rate on slot revenue and a 21% rate on table revenue, which drives the cost of running the joint higher than anywhere else in the country.
PA is a microcosm of what Obama wants the rest of the country to be... and even our out-going Governor says so (Ed Rendell, if you wanted to check). If Wall Street and the rest of the economic machine that drives our country wonders what such designs can do for the rest of the country...
Come to PA and see what its like.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
A serious question...
Santa has come and gone here in NEPA, and he left an X-Box 360 at the Chateau de Lieteau.
I know Ryan has one, and I am 99% sure that Jambo has one. I was watching Nolan (the 15-year-old) play Call of Duty: Black Ops last night with a friend and a relative (via the x-Box live feature)... and I was absolutely fascinated with the game.
It seems that console technology has finally caught up to the PC genre. Viable real-time action and communication with all the conveniences of the PC graphics and controls in a console platform. We might not be 100% ready for a "reunion" on X-Box (we only have one controller right now), but the time is coming, and I was particularly fascinated with the "ranking" system that the game uses. Enough wins and xp points and the higher your rank among internet players.
Do you guys have this game and console? Can we actually have a "Bund" team on COD:BO? Imagine that... a four-man "monster squad" with a head for tactics and strategy, ready to rid the world of opponents? I watched Nolan and his three-man team play, and they did well... but I could see where they were making mistakes.
This is worth looking into, I think.
I know Ryan has one, and I am 99% sure that Jambo has one. I was watching Nolan (the 15-year-old) play Call of Duty: Black Ops last night with a friend and a relative (via the x-Box live feature)... and I was absolutely fascinated with the game.
It seems that console technology has finally caught up to the PC genre. Viable real-time action and communication with all the conveniences of the PC graphics and controls in a console platform. We might not be 100% ready for a "reunion" on X-Box (we only have one controller right now), but the time is coming, and I was particularly fascinated with the "ranking" system that the game uses. Enough wins and xp points and the higher your rank among internet players.
Do you guys have this game and console? Can we actually have a "Bund" team on COD:BO? Imagine that... a four-man "monster squad" with a head for tactics and strategy, ready to rid the world of opponents? I watched Nolan and his three-man team play, and they did well... but I could see where they were making mistakes.
This is worth looking into, I think.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
December 26th ...
Your last was worth publishing brother, honestly.
I decided to pull up to my computer tonight, & look in on our little site. You see ... due to casino schedules this very morning my sons, which is to say my world, sleep tight in the smiling expectation that when they wake it will be Christmas ... for them. We set our Yule Tide sights on Sunday morning, to fit work responsibilities, & I noticed something quite valuable. You can pick a date, any date, & center your life those 24 hours around the people whom you love above all, whom make your life worth living, & no calender could tell you it's not Christmas.
And as this is our earthly time to celebrate life through that of the Savior's, let me wish a very MERRY CHRISTMAS to my dear, dear friends ... my bund of brothers.
I decided to pull up to my computer tonight, & look in on our little site. You see ... due to casino schedules this very morning my sons, which is to say my world, sleep tight in the smiling expectation that when they wake it will be Christmas ... for them. We set our Yule Tide sights on Sunday morning, to fit work responsibilities, & I noticed something quite valuable. You can pick a date, any date, & center your life those 24 hours around the people whom you love above all, whom make your life worth living, & no calender could tell you it's not Christmas.
And as this is our earthly time to celebrate life through that of the Savior's, let me wish a very MERRY CHRISTMAS to my dear, dear friends ... my bund of brothers.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
"God bless us... every one!"
As the last hours of Christmas roll past us, I hope I am not too late to say to everyone reading this blog that I sincerely hope you all had a wonderful, blessed and happy Christmas. I hope your family and friends were close, your food abundant and your worries and cares a million miles away. I hope that the age-old remembrance of the coming of the Savior into the world in the poorest and most humble of garbs while bringing the greatest message of mercy and joy ever known wasn't forgotten or neglected amidst the hurry and tumble of modern Yule-tide commercialism.
My day wasn't without its trials... but I spent time with a loving family, good friends, and even managed to earn a few dollars in the mix. I watched my children open their gifts, play with the toys and games, and I even watched them remember that the holiday is about a baby's birthday... not about who got what they wanted and who didn't.
I go to bed tonight thanking my Lord and my God for all the gifts he has given me... my children and wife, my parents and siblings, my home and my job, the good times and the bad times... and I will say a prayer tonight that all of YOU are taken care of as lovingly as He has taken care of us.
Merry Christmas to all... and to all, a good night.
My day wasn't without its trials... but I spent time with a loving family, good friends, and even managed to earn a few dollars in the mix. I watched my children open their gifts, play with the toys and games, and I even watched them remember that the holiday is about a baby's birthday... not about who got what they wanted and who didn't.
I go to bed tonight thanking my Lord and my God for all the gifts he has given me... my children and wife, my parents and siblings, my home and my job, the good times and the bad times... and I will say a prayer tonight that all of YOU are taken care of as lovingly as He has taken care of us.
Merry Christmas to all... and to all, a good night.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Poor as church-mice...
... and I still can't find one free minute to myself with all the Christmas rushing and running that has to be done each and every day leading up to Saturday morning. Unbelievable...
Still, the bulk of our shopping for the kids seems done, and while it isn't the prodigious great heap of gifts that these children have had in past years (when I was actually in some kind of funds)... its a damn good haul for them, if you ask me. All seem to have gotten what they really, really wanted (even Jacob... who's been very, very good the last few days). That is the problem with kids as they get older... the items they really really want are bigger ticket items that (in a down economy such as ours) necessitate a smaller gift budget than that afforded to kids younger than 10. None the less, all seems well... I know Liz wishes there could be more, but we've done damn good with what we had.
Now, if we can just get the mortgage caught up...
Still, the bulk of our shopping for the kids seems done, and while it isn't the prodigious great heap of gifts that these children have had in past years (when I was actually in some kind of funds)... its a damn good haul for them, if you ask me. All seem to have gotten what they really, really wanted (even Jacob... who's been very, very good the last few days). That is the problem with kids as they get older... the items they really really want are bigger ticket items that (in a down economy such as ours) necessitate a smaller gift budget than that afforded to kids younger than 10. None the less, all seems well... I know Liz wishes there could be more, but we've done damn good with what we had.
Now, if we can just get the mortgage caught up...
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Barbour is in the heat...
Barbour is in trouble because of a statement he made during an interview with the Weekly Standard. Seems he gave his personal views on the Citizens Council of Yazoo City, MS from his youth in the '60s... and the liberal left is saying he's a racist because of it.
For those that don't know, the Citizens Councils were groups of local small-town citizens that banded together in an unofficial manner to get things done the way they wanted them done. Some were very anti-black and anti-civil rights, while others were not. What they ALL were was an all-white group of men who took matters into their own hands... something the liberals of today cannot fathom at all.
Barbour's exact words seemed to be saying that the Citizen's Council of his hometown were very anti-Klan, if nothing else. If someone started a Klan in Yazoo City, they'd be run out of business/home/town by any means necessary. It was too much trouble to be worth the risk, they seemed to think. His seeming defense of the Council is what has the liberals in arms, but his words are aimed at one particular Council (Yazoo City), not ALL Councils.
None the less, this is why I DON'T think Barbour is a viable candidate. He's simply too "old South" for a modern President. He was raised during segregation, and at some point, his detractors will be able to point to something he has said or done (real or perceived) in the past that will make his viability more than difficult.
Its too bad... I like him. I really do.
For those that don't know, the Citizens Councils were groups of local small-town citizens that banded together in an unofficial manner to get things done the way they wanted them done. Some were very anti-black and anti-civil rights, while others were not. What they ALL were was an all-white group of men who took matters into their own hands... something the liberals of today cannot fathom at all.
Barbour's exact words seemed to be saying that the Citizen's Council of his hometown were very anti-Klan, if nothing else. If someone started a Klan in Yazoo City, they'd be run out of business/home/town by any means necessary. It was too much trouble to be worth the risk, they seemed to think. His seeming defense of the Council is what has the liberals in arms, but his words are aimed at one particular Council (Yazoo City), not ALL Councils.
None the less, this is why I DON'T think Barbour is a viable candidate. He's simply too "old South" for a modern President. He was raised during segregation, and at some point, his detractors will be able to point to something he has said or done (real or perceived) in the past that will make his viability more than difficult.
Its too bad... I like him. I really do.
Fair enough...
We need take the "Next War" scenario no further... "we'd win, it would be tough" is enough for me to say you see my point. The failure of the Soviet Union was in its central planning and complete economic control of all aspects of daily life for its people... not in the manner by which they chose to wage war. The USSR collapsed... the Red Army did not.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Strong like bull!
Yes, I think the Cold War being won without "firing a shot" (which is a complete misnomer as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and countless covert Latin American coups all made up the Cold war), has allowed those revisionists, such as the producers of that program, the latitude to claim a pacifist victory. I still have PhD's sit on my table and explain that Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union/Cold War with his enlightened, progressive reforms and Reagan et al were just along for the ride (talk about hands in the air time ... sheesh).
I just think your apparent need to keep refining your position in this argument regarding NATO vs USSR tells me its not a viable position. Going from (I'm paraphrasing): It's not a foregone conclusion; to, it is a forgone conclusion, but the first 24 hours may be rougher then imagined; to, pre shot diplomatic squabbling may hamper the first 24 hours. I mean brother come on, no mas already. We would win, it wouldn't be easy, period.
That being said you're not going to get a defense of European pacifist posturing out of me (save the UK). In fact, I read your last 2 posts & it occurs they could of well of been authored by me. You have nailed the state of modern European affairs. And I can only imagine how many times your hands went into the air with the words, "oh for f***'s sake!" jolting those around you whilst watching that program. My counter to you throughout has been my assumption that even Europe would recognize a "threat" were the gun barrel pressed to their temple, especially if it were a Makarov. And that Reagan & Thatcher would sure as hell make certain they at least noticed the cold steel.
On other fronts (and backs) ...
"Don't ask, don't tell" will end Wednesday when the PoTUS signs the reversal just passed in the Senate into law. A 60 day buffer is set up before full implementation, with combat and special forces set to be last.
Look, I've heard arguments on both sides, from veterans of all generations. Most of the current soldiers, from the polls I viewed, oppose it. That being said, I assume our forces are professional enough to get any job done (man, is there a joke in there somewhere, if it were any outfit but the US Military...).
But what I do know for certain is this will automatically fold straight into the gay marriage debate (in a manner of speaking ... ok, demon exercised). Get ready for: They can die for their country, but not marry in that same country! If they die in service of their nation their significant other can't receive spouse benefits! And denial of all the VA, schooling, housing etc, etc benefits that traditional spouses receive as part of their husband's (or wife's) service. Those in favor of confederate marriage have won a strategic battle here, make no mistake about it.
North Korea ... as with most school yard bullies the moment the victim stood up, they blinked. The official NK media service quoted their high command as responding to SK's live fire exercises with, "it wasn't worth responding to." What? What's that? I thought just yesterday it was worth invading Seoul for. What happened there Kimmy?
The truth is that not long into any renewed Korean conflict many of the North's soldiers will be surrendering in hopes of a meal. Good for the South - ignore Russia and China's warning about "provoking" NK, and conduct your exercise. Well done.
And oh ya, the North not only blinked but special US envoy to NK, Bill Richardson, notes the North has "suddenly" agreed to renewed weapons inspections. Hmmm ... it seems South Korea doesn't suffer from Western Europe's impotency.
I just think your apparent need to keep refining your position in this argument regarding NATO vs USSR tells me its not a viable position. Going from (I'm paraphrasing): It's not a foregone conclusion; to, it is a forgone conclusion, but the first 24 hours may be rougher then imagined; to, pre shot diplomatic squabbling may hamper the first 24 hours. I mean brother come on, no mas already. We would win, it wouldn't be easy, period.
That being said you're not going to get a defense of European pacifist posturing out of me (save the UK). In fact, I read your last 2 posts & it occurs they could of well of been authored by me. You have nailed the state of modern European affairs. And I can only imagine how many times your hands went into the air with the words, "oh for f***'s sake!" jolting those around you whilst watching that program. My counter to you throughout has been my assumption that even Europe would recognize a "threat" were the gun barrel pressed to their temple, especially if it were a Makarov. And that Reagan & Thatcher would sure as hell make certain they at least noticed the cold steel.
On other fronts (and backs) ...
"Don't ask, don't tell" will end Wednesday when the PoTUS signs the reversal just passed in the Senate into law. A 60 day buffer is set up before full implementation, with combat and special forces set to be last.
Look, I've heard arguments on both sides, from veterans of all generations. Most of the current soldiers, from the polls I viewed, oppose it. That being said, I assume our forces are professional enough to get any job done (man, is there a joke in there somewhere, if it were any outfit but the US Military...).
But what I do know for certain is this will automatically fold straight into the gay marriage debate (in a manner of speaking ... ok, demon exercised). Get ready for: They can die for their country, but not marry in that same country! If they die in service of their nation their significant other can't receive spouse benefits! And denial of all the VA, schooling, housing etc, etc benefits that traditional spouses receive as part of their husband's (or wife's) service. Those in favor of confederate marriage have won a strategic battle here, make no mistake about it.
North Korea ... as with most school yard bullies the moment the victim stood up, they blinked. The official NK media service quoted their high command as responding to SK's live fire exercises with, "it wasn't worth responding to." What? What's that? I thought just yesterday it was worth invading Seoul for. What happened there Kimmy?
The truth is that not long into any renewed Korean conflict many of the North's soldiers will be surrendering in hopes of a meal. Good for the South - ignore Russia and China's warning about "provoking" NK, and conduct your exercise. Well done.
And oh ya, the North not only blinked but special US envoy to NK, Bill Richardson, notes the North has "suddenly" agreed to renewed weapons inspections. Hmmm ... it seems South Korea doesn't suffer from Western Europe's impotency.
I'll even go one step further...
Hehe... I'm on a roll now.
Can it be assumed that one of the reasons that the "pacifist" view has so taken hold of Europe (and to a lesser degree, North America) is because the Soviets DIDN'T invade and the USSR collapsed WITHOUT armed Western intervention? Is this a possible explanation as to why "diplomacy" is seen as some kind of 100% replacement of a strong military defense?
My whole train of thought here stems from a program that made the case that the Cold War was won BECAUSE a shot was never fired. This is patently false, and the show was nothing more than liberal, revisionist tripe... but the thought struck in my head as to what would cause rational men and women to think this way.
The conflict we avoided in Europe when the USSR collapsed under its own weight was one that had been raging for at least 70 years, and I'm rather convinced that the case can be made that it actually started in 1618 with the start of the Thirty Years War. There is an old adage that says that no war ends... it only has long resting periods. Korea is an excellent example of this... the war that began in 1950 has never "officially" ended, but the armistice is still being observed.
Perhaps the "soft" ending to the threat posed by the USSR to western Europe has given the false impression that military defense and preparations are no longer needed in light of the success of diplomacy. Has this been further supported by the relative "ease" with which Kuwait was liberated in '91? Or the Iraq regime's removal in only weeks in '03?
Europe seems at peace now... but if we look carefully, we see that the same "players" are in control now that were in control (for the most part) for the last 400 years: Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia... with only Russia remaining outside the "European" club (as has always been the case, too).
Thoughts?
Can it be assumed that one of the reasons that the "pacifist" view has so taken hold of Europe (and to a lesser degree, North America) is because the Soviets DIDN'T invade and the USSR collapsed WITHOUT armed Western intervention? Is this a possible explanation as to why "diplomacy" is seen as some kind of 100% replacement of a strong military defense?
My whole train of thought here stems from a program that made the case that the Cold War was won BECAUSE a shot was never fired. This is patently false, and the show was nothing more than liberal, revisionist tripe... but the thought struck in my head as to what would cause rational men and women to think this way.
The conflict we avoided in Europe when the USSR collapsed under its own weight was one that had been raging for at least 70 years, and I'm rather convinced that the case can be made that it actually started in 1618 with the start of the Thirty Years War. There is an old adage that says that no war ends... it only has long resting periods. Korea is an excellent example of this... the war that began in 1950 has never "officially" ended, but the armistice is still being observed.
Perhaps the "soft" ending to the threat posed by the USSR to western Europe has given the false impression that military defense and preparations are no longer needed in light of the success of diplomacy. Has this been further supported by the relative "ease" with which Kuwait was liberated in '91? Or the Iraq regime's removal in only weeks in '03?
Europe seems at peace now... but if we look carefully, we see that the same "players" are in control now that were in control (for the most part) for the last 400 years: Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia... with only Russia remaining outside the "European" club (as has always been the case, too).
Thoughts?
Another comment...
1991. Desert Shield.
34 countries unite in the effort to force Iraq out of Kuwait, and 11 of them are NATO members... but five other NATO states are NOT part of the coalition against Iraq: Turkey, Luxembourg, Portugal, Iceland... and Germany. So, what do we see from this? Once Germany is united and the "wall" is down, mutual defense is less important to the Germans? International cooperation means less in 1991 than it did in the ten or twelve years prior to it? Iceland and Germany are NOT vital to the effort of throwing back the Soviets in the 80s because they weren't involved in the effort to throw back Iraq in the 90s?
You are almost making my point for me. Let's face it... no one is saying that the threat to Western Europe was from the "Warsaw Pact" states... it was from the USSR and the Red Army. Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary were all question marks to the Kremlin's plans far more than they were assets. Warsaw Pact "unity" stemmed from Soviet control and thus was not the factor in their equation that "unity" would have been for NATO. If we can see NATO disunity in 1983, 1986, 1989 and 1991... why would we assume that NATO unity would exist at any point within these dates leading up to a Soviet invasion of Europe? Has NATO been any more unified since 1991? No, it hasn't. Four members have removed troops from service in Afghanistan, even though the NATO commitment is still going strong.
See my point? Am I still not being clear? I'm not saying you are wrong... only that NATO and its resolve is still a big enough question for me to say that the cost of winning a war in central Europe starting from a Soviet invasion would NOT have been as easy or as short as I think many people assume. Comparing it to '91 or '03 are not fair comparisons (not that you are making that comparison, either).
34 countries unite in the effort to force Iraq out of Kuwait, and 11 of them are NATO members... but five other NATO states are NOT part of the coalition against Iraq: Turkey, Luxembourg, Portugal, Iceland... and Germany. So, what do we see from this? Once Germany is united and the "wall" is down, mutual defense is less important to the Germans? International cooperation means less in 1991 than it did in the ten or twelve years prior to it? Iceland and Germany are NOT vital to the effort of throwing back the Soviets in the 80s because they weren't involved in the effort to throw back Iraq in the 90s?
You are almost making my point for me. Let's face it... no one is saying that the threat to Western Europe was from the "Warsaw Pact" states... it was from the USSR and the Red Army. Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary were all question marks to the Kremlin's plans far more than they were assets. Warsaw Pact "unity" stemmed from Soviet control and thus was not the factor in their equation that "unity" would have been for NATO. If we can see NATO disunity in 1983, 1986, 1989 and 1991... why would we assume that NATO unity would exist at any point within these dates leading up to a Soviet invasion of Europe? Has NATO been any more unified since 1991? No, it hasn't. Four members have removed troops from service in Afghanistan, even though the NATO commitment is still going strong.
See my point? Am I still not being clear? I'm not saying you are wrong... only that NATO and its resolve is still a big enough question for me to say that the cost of winning a war in central Europe starting from a Soviet invasion would NOT have been as easy or as short as I think many people assume. Comparing it to '91 or '03 are not fair comparisons (not that you are making that comparison, either).
You're right...
... but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Your point is that everyone benefits from cooperating within the framework of NATO once the Soviets are rolling tanks across the inter-German border. My point is that the success of NATO (and the time line for that success) depends on how ready we are for the invasion before it happens. Any delay, any confusion, delays or hampers our efforts to hold them back and maintain the status quo.
France, Spain and Italy did nothing to detract from the air strike (on Libya) once it was done... but their inability or unwillingness to cooperate before hand hampered US efforts... yes or no? Furthermore this isn't a case of US interests going counter to NATO interests, either. The bomb blew up in German territory, wounding French servicemen as well as killing Americans, and there was evidence of links to bomb makers in Italy found during the investigation. This really was an attack on multiple NATO members... yet only the US and UK saw the threat and were willing to act.
From 1981 on, the political view of the civilian leadership of Europe has moved more and more to a pacifistic position... further and further to the "left", in other words. There are no more "Maggie" Thatchers working from #10 Downing Street. No more Mitterrands, no more Kohls, and there aren't going to be any more Reagans either. We are talking about a time when all these leaders were in power... but the climate they worked in had already begun to change. Anti-nuclear demonstrations raged through Europe, anti-American parades were held in towns that depended on US troops to defend them from Soviet attack, and any action taken by the US against perceived aggression was questioned to the point of oblivion (Libya, for example).
Soviet victory depended on rapid advance and almost total surprise... but ANY delay or confusion on the part of NATO equals the same thing. I agree 100% that once the Soviets fire that first shot... all of Western Europe is behind the US all the way. I'm asking what the chances are that, leading up to that first shot, someone in France, or the Netherlands, or Italy decide that there is a "political or diplomatic option" that hasn't been followed... and doesn't cooperate fully with the NATO plan of forward defense, causing a delay in something as vital to our every effort as "REFORGER" or our surface fleet resupply efforts. THAT is the "question" of NATO success that I am bringing up.
My conviction that the war would be won by the West shouldn't surprise anyone, because I think history shows us the facts. The USSR couldn't have waged a long-term war in Europe, and the longer they waited to start it (after the invasion of Afghanistan), then the less time they had to fight it. This is simple, economic FACT. The problem is that Soviet doctrine called for the use of armed actions to counter failing economic planning (Brezhnev used this to convince the rest of the Politburo to invade Afghanistan in the first place)... so the worse things got in Russia and the east, the more likely an action against the West must have seemed. NATO would win a long war... but the less prepared we were, the more costly the victory would be. Western Europe was not in favor of allowing that war to be fought at all (with the exception of the UK, I understand) and all the political leadership in the world wouldn't have made the voting public any happier about the prospect.
Anyway... that's MY opinion. No one has to agree at all.
Your point is that everyone benefits from cooperating within the framework of NATO once the Soviets are rolling tanks across the inter-German border. My point is that the success of NATO (and the time line for that success) depends on how ready we are for the invasion before it happens. Any delay, any confusion, delays or hampers our efforts to hold them back and maintain the status quo.
France, Spain and Italy did nothing to detract from the air strike (on Libya) once it was done... but their inability or unwillingness to cooperate before hand hampered US efforts... yes or no? Furthermore this isn't a case of US interests going counter to NATO interests, either. The bomb blew up in German territory, wounding French servicemen as well as killing Americans, and there was evidence of links to bomb makers in Italy found during the investigation. This really was an attack on multiple NATO members... yet only the US and UK saw the threat and were willing to act.
From 1981 on, the political view of the civilian leadership of Europe has moved more and more to a pacifistic position... further and further to the "left", in other words. There are no more "Maggie" Thatchers working from #10 Downing Street. No more Mitterrands, no more Kohls, and there aren't going to be any more Reagans either. We are talking about a time when all these leaders were in power... but the climate they worked in had already begun to change. Anti-nuclear demonstrations raged through Europe, anti-American parades were held in towns that depended on US troops to defend them from Soviet attack, and any action taken by the US against perceived aggression was questioned to the point of oblivion (Libya, for example).
Soviet victory depended on rapid advance and almost total surprise... but ANY delay or confusion on the part of NATO equals the same thing. I agree 100% that once the Soviets fire that first shot... all of Western Europe is behind the US all the way. I'm asking what the chances are that, leading up to that first shot, someone in France, or the Netherlands, or Italy decide that there is a "political or diplomatic option" that hasn't been followed... and doesn't cooperate fully with the NATO plan of forward defense, causing a delay in something as vital to our every effort as "REFORGER" or our surface fleet resupply efforts. THAT is the "question" of NATO success that I am bringing up.
My conviction that the war would be won by the West shouldn't surprise anyone, because I think history shows us the facts. The USSR couldn't have waged a long-term war in Europe, and the longer they waited to start it (after the invasion of Afghanistan), then the less time they had to fight it. This is simple, economic FACT. The problem is that Soviet doctrine called for the use of armed actions to counter failing economic planning (Brezhnev used this to convince the rest of the Politburo to invade Afghanistan in the first place)... so the worse things got in Russia and the east, the more likely an action against the West must have seemed. NATO would win a long war... but the less prepared we were, the more costly the victory would be. Western Europe was not in favor of allowing that war to be fought at all (with the exception of the UK, I understand) and all the political leadership in the world wouldn't have made the voting public any happier about the prospect.
Anyway... that's MY opinion. No one has to agree at all.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
I thought I accounted for Libya?
I wrote:
"You seem to focus much of your angst over the (in)ability of NATO to maintain its cohesiveness. And as exhibit A you note the penchant of France, Spain, Italy et al for finding a way, any way, to weasel out of their NATO obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan (& Libya, etc). I don't think that's an apples to apples comparison ... I am willing to wager that those same weasels at the lectern would start quoting chapter and verse from the pulpit regarding NATO's "attack on one" policy were it the Red Army barreling into Western Germany with the intent of not stopping until they had replaced Hadrian's Wall with the Iron Curtain."
Look, far be it from me to defend the pristine nature of these multilateral institutions, and I mean that sincerely. But with a Russian invasion there aren't any of the usual squirming, weak knee issues that send European elites running to a microphone intent on exercising their favorite past time just ahead of Cricket - bashing America for domestic consumption. No minority voting blocks to offend, no PC, no "America's wars of choice." The aggressor and what is at stake would be crystal clear, even to modern European leaders.
Let's put it this way, and this is relevant to the time frame we're discussing, as it occurred in 1991. The most impressive display of NATO "plus" coalition building in recent history was the first Gulf War. President George H. Bush put together a monumental group (something on the order of 90 countries if I remember correctly), with NATO (via America) at the lead. And this was all made capable because the conflict wasn't murky, wasn't debatable. The aggressor was clear. If the world can come together, and in this case NATO, with a rapid, no holds barred agreement to eject Saddam out of Kuwait, then I can't see how that arrangement doesn't play out ten fold if instead of a tiny Arab country the ally being invaded is West Germany, leading into Holland, France and Italy.
Do you see my point? If we can rapidly come together with Europe to defend Kuwait, then I assume we can rapidly come together with Europe to defend Europe.
And one more aspect we should consider. And this is certainly an angle with ramifications in the long term of any war with the Soviets, not the initial 24-48 hours. The peoples of Europe tend to dispatch with the ineffectiveness of "dovish" leadership once the war is "on." Now they are just as apt to discard their wartime leadership once peace is secured, but your presumption on a faulty NATO alliance is based on the assumption that the doves you haven't any faith in, would remain in power for long. I don't think they would, less they immediately go from Chamberlain to Churchill in their posturing.
"You seem to focus much of your angst over the (in)ability of NATO to maintain its cohesiveness. And as exhibit A you note the penchant of France, Spain, Italy et al for finding a way, any way, to weasel out of their NATO obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan (& Libya, etc). I don't think that's an apples to apples comparison ... I am willing to wager that those same weasels at the lectern would start quoting chapter and verse from the pulpit regarding NATO's "attack on one" policy were it the Red Army barreling into Western Germany with the intent of not stopping until they had replaced Hadrian's Wall with the Iron Curtain."
Look, far be it from me to defend the pristine nature of these multilateral institutions, and I mean that sincerely. But with a Russian invasion there aren't any of the usual squirming, weak knee issues that send European elites running to a microphone intent on exercising their favorite past time just ahead of Cricket - bashing America for domestic consumption. No minority voting blocks to offend, no PC, no "America's wars of choice." The aggressor and what is at stake would be crystal clear, even to modern European leaders.
Let's put it this way, and this is relevant to the time frame we're discussing, as it occurred in 1991. The most impressive display of NATO "plus" coalition building in recent history was the first Gulf War. President George H. Bush put together a monumental group (something on the order of 90 countries if I remember correctly), with NATO (via America) at the lead. And this was all made capable because the conflict wasn't murky, wasn't debatable. The aggressor was clear. If the world can come together, and in this case NATO, with a rapid, no holds barred agreement to eject Saddam out of Kuwait, then I can't see how that arrangement doesn't play out ten fold if instead of a tiny Arab country the ally being invaded is West Germany, leading into Holland, France and Italy.
Do you see my point? If we can rapidly come together with Europe to defend Kuwait, then I assume we can rapidly come together with Europe to defend Europe.
And one more aspect we should consider. And this is certainly an angle with ramifications in the long term of any war with the Soviets, not the initial 24-48 hours. The peoples of Europe tend to dispatch with the ineffectiveness of "dovish" leadership once the war is "on." Now they are just as apt to discard their wartime leadership once peace is secured, but your presumption on a faulty NATO alliance is based on the assumption that the doves you haven't any faith in, would remain in power for long. I don't think they would, less they immediately go from Chamberlain to Churchill in their posturing.
More Cold War thoughts and comments...
Ryan's points are good ones, and while he might think my pondering "what ifs" irrational because I think we would have won regardless... I'm pondering the manner in which we'd win, not the fact itself. That's all... nothing more.
My thoughts on his comments:
Reagan and Thatcher. The Dynamic Duo of the Cold War... and rightly claiming the title. Two tough old codgers, no doubt. So, no consideration of NATO hesitation or failure can be taken without weighing what these two giants of the 80s would have wanted and/or done... well, let's think about that a second.
In April of 1986, a bomb of Libyan origin exploded in a West Berlin disco and killed two US servicemen and wounding 200 other people... all because of a sparring match that the US and Libya had been playing over territorial rights in the Gulf of Sidra. Ten days after the bomb exploded... the US decided to strike back in spades.
This bombing was a direct attack on US interests and personnel, in a manner that put hundreds of innocent civilians at risk of their lives. Within hours of the attack, we knew who was responsible for the attack, and we knew how we could strike back. Reagan and the Cabinet reached out to the other leaders of NATO nations that might be effected by the strike on Libya... and NONE OF THEM cooperated... not even so much as to let the US overfly their air space. Entire US airbases were CLOSED to the strike because they exist on continental Europe, where the leadership didn't want to be associated with the US action.
The only two NATO leaders that thought the attack a good idea? Reagan and Thatcher. No other support from the leadership of the NATO member states was coming... AT ALL. THIS isn't a good example that NATO was not the "sure thing" that you (and Jambo) are suggesting it was all through the 80s?
I do not discount the reality of the leadership that Thatcher and Reagan could bring to the table... not at all... but if even a few days of preparation were delayed by in-fighting, confusion, or non-cooperation by just a few NATO member states, what does that do to a NATO time line for countering a Soviet invasion? Countering such an invasion in a unilateral manner like the US/Brits did in the Libyan bombing campaign... even if the unilateral action is only a few days long before the rest of NATO is up and running with us... is the result the same as that suggested by Jambo and Ryan? What if even ONE train is held up at a border? What if even ONE airport is closed to MAC flights? What if even ONE port is closed to US shipping for as little as 24 hours? The number disparity is nearly 2 to 1 against NATO at the outbreak of war... and I simply don't see any evidence (now or then) that NATO could do what it promised without pause or interruption.
Its curious that I'm seen as discounting the "reality" of Reagan/Thatcher... but no one sees the disparity of what was "intended" to be and what actually happened?
My thoughts on his comments:
Reagan and Thatcher. The Dynamic Duo of the Cold War... and rightly claiming the title. Two tough old codgers, no doubt. So, no consideration of NATO hesitation or failure can be taken without weighing what these two giants of the 80s would have wanted and/or done... well, let's think about that a second.
In April of 1986, a bomb of Libyan origin exploded in a West Berlin disco and killed two US servicemen and wounding 200 other people... all because of a sparring match that the US and Libya had been playing over territorial rights in the Gulf of Sidra. Ten days after the bomb exploded... the US decided to strike back in spades.
This bombing was a direct attack on US interests and personnel, in a manner that put hundreds of innocent civilians at risk of their lives. Within hours of the attack, we knew who was responsible for the attack, and we knew how we could strike back. Reagan and the Cabinet reached out to the other leaders of NATO nations that might be effected by the strike on Libya... and NONE OF THEM cooperated... not even so much as to let the US overfly their air space. Entire US airbases were CLOSED to the strike because they exist on continental Europe, where the leadership didn't want to be associated with the US action.
The only two NATO leaders that thought the attack a good idea? Reagan and Thatcher. No other support from the leadership of the NATO member states was coming... AT ALL. THIS isn't a good example that NATO was not the "sure thing" that you (and Jambo) are suggesting it was all through the 80s?
I do not discount the reality of the leadership that Thatcher and Reagan could bring to the table... not at all... but if even a few days of preparation were delayed by in-fighting, confusion, or non-cooperation by just a few NATO member states, what does that do to a NATO time line for countering a Soviet invasion? Countering such an invasion in a unilateral manner like the US/Brits did in the Libyan bombing campaign... even if the unilateral action is only a few days long before the rest of NATO is up and running with us... is the result the same as that suggested by Jambo and Ryan? What if even ONE train is held up at a border? What if even ONE airport is closed to MAC flights? What if even ONE port is closed to US shipping for as little as 24 hours? The number disparity is nearly 2 to 1 against NATO at the outbreak of war... and I simply don't see any evidence (now or then) that NATO could do what it promised without pause or interruption.
Its curious that I'm seen as discounting the "reality" of Reagan/Thatcher... but no one sees the disparity of what was "intended" to be and what actually happened?
North Korea...
Kim has again "doubled down" in his bid to force the West to give him what he wants. He has unveiled a huge nuclear fuel plant, shelled an unfortified island and killed two civilians and two soldiers, and now is threatening to attack even harder if South Korea goes ahead with a scheduled military exercise on an uninhabited island on the other side of the peninsula.
North Korean communism has become such a failure at every level of operation that without outside support (in the form of food, fuel and cash) it cannot continue to exist. No assistance or support will come without North Korean aggression, so the aggression on the part of the Kim regime has to escalate with each passing year. More and more of North Korea's meager resources are being squandered to extend Kim's ability to threaten and cajole the West, forcing the need for greater and more extensive outside foreign support.
Both Clinton and Bush Jr. took American compliance with this de facto policy to new heights... and (shockingly enough) the first President to NOT follow this plan (so far) has been Obama. That's right... Obama.
Obama has not offered to return to the six-party talks, nor has he offered to hold one-to-one talks with Pyongyang (something I was fairly certain he would do two years ago)... and his condemnation of North Korean aggression has been as firm and forthright as I could hope, given the circumstances. The question now is... what next?
Let's assume that the South does go ahead with their planned exercises, and the North does something stupid like ordering an air strike or another artillery attack. Do we simply condemn the actions... again... or do we react? We have the entire Eighth Army in theater, along with two complete carrier groups and a substantial portion of the 7th Air Force. Should the North take the saber-rattling to the next level, we have the means to counter it with perfect legitimacy and right.
Does Obama have the gumption to carry this policy through? Could the man actually recognize how non-functional past policies and practices have been? Could he do this one right?
North Korean communism has become such a failure at every level of operation that without outside support (in the form of food, fuel and cash) it cannot continue to exist. No assistance or support will come without North Korean aggression, so the aggression on the part of the Kim regime has to escalate with each passing year. More and more of North Korea's meager resources are being squandered to extend Kim's ability to threaten and cajole the West, forcing the need for greater and more extensive outside foreign support.
Both Clinton and Bush Jr. took American compliance with this de facto policy to new heights... and (shockingly enough) the first President to NOT follow this plan (so far) has been Obama. That's right... Obama.
Obama has not offered to return to the six-party talks, nor has he offered to hold one-to-one talks with Pyongyang (something I was fairly certain he would do two years ago)... and his condemnation of North Korean aggression has been as firm and forthright as I could hope, given the circumstances. The question now is... what next?
Let's assume that the South does go ahead with their planned exercises, and the North does something stupid like ordering an air strike or another artillery attack. Do we simply condemn the actions... again... or do we react? We have the entire Eighth Army in theater, along with two complete carrier groups and a substantial portion of the 7th Air Force. Should the North take the saber-rattling to the next level, we have the means to counter it with perfect legitimacy and right.
Does Obama have the gumption to carry this policy through? Could the man actually recognize how non-functional past policies and practices have been? Could he do this one right?
The Classics
Ahhh, the classics ... symmetrical warfare. Enemies with fixed borders and identifiable realestate. A time when men with big chests and cold glares could sit among the frozen tundra, icy spit stuck to their wayward beards, and move Risk pieces around on a board that meant something. Whom among us doesn't pine for such "cave-free" days?
Now to get to it - I must concur with Jambo. I don't see how in retrospect we can all agree that the Soviet's unsustainability as an Empire meant losing the Cold War was a forgone conclusion, yet not see their losing a hot war as a forgone conclusion (especially a protracted one). But more on that in a moment.
My 3 basic reasons, and conclusion.
1.) From what I gather you've noted that Soviet "blitzkrieg" was a neccessity to victory, and would focus around avoiding urban choke points. And my point in this instance is the Soviets have 2 choices in their march forward, both bad. If they are to focus their "punching through" via routes of sparsely populated, rural territory then they would be open to the full weight and might of our superior air power. The only way to avoid such merciless strafing would of course be to prey upon the West's inability (post Vietnam) to stomach mass civilian casualties. In other words they mitigate the carpet bombing by heading to/through those urban areas. In which case you have a determined resistance, defending every square inch of their home territory. This is a lesson the victors of Stalingrad and veterans of Afghanistan would not take lightly. In either case I don't see any "obvious" potential for the dreaded "punch through."
2.) You (Titus) seem to focus much of your angst over the ability of NATO to maintain its cohesiveness. And as exhibit A you note the penchant of France, Spain, Italy et al for finding a way, any way, to weasel out of their NATO obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan (& Libya, etc). I don't think that's an apples to apples comparison, and here's why: there are still legitimate arguments being had (& I fall on the war approach side) on whether the "war on terror" is properly handled as a "war", or should be seen as a police/law enforcement action. Also, the necessity of Iraq, of staying in Afghanistan, America's "war of choices", these are all a part of the domestic discussion in Continental Europe, and have been for 10 years. And I am willing to wager that those same weasels at the lectern would start quoting chapter and verse from the pulpit regarding NATO's "attack on one" policy were it the Red Army barreling into Western Germany with the intent of not stopping until they had replaced Hadrian's Wall with the Iron Curtain. In addition, much of the bravado parylization of Western Europe stems from Political Correctness. This has choked off rationale discussion on how we must deal with Radical Islam (when they'll even mention the words "Islam" and "problem" in the same breath, that is). I don't see such a problem with ethnic Russians within Europe. If for no other reason then ethnic Russians are less likely to form a political PAC and become professional victims.
3.) We mustn't forget that any NATO coalition engaged in repelling a Soviet invasion of Western Germany (forward), would be helmed by a Reagan-Thatcher alliance. There is no measure to how much effort, productivity, and commitment to total war these 2 would muster in this struggle. This matters. Especially for an Soviet Empire (circa the 1980's) whom knew it was but a few fiscal cycles away from internal collapse (this point does in no way negate the necessity/fortitude of the Reagan foot-on-throat confrontation policy as a means of speeding up this decline).
In conclusion ...
"Look, like I said, I'm not saying we couldn't have won a third European war. In fact, I am convinced we would have. I'm simply saying that it isn't the forgone conclusion that many seem to think it is."
I suppose it is this line which puzzles me most of all. I'm not sure I understand it. Isn't stating "I am convinced we would have (won)" the textbook definition of a "forgone conclusion?"
If you mean to say it wouldn't have been as "easy" as many think it would have been, I don't follow there either. I don't think anyone from Eisenhower, to Reagan to the producers of Red Dawn thought it would be "easy" to beat the Reds. They were a Super Power after all. Just inevitable.
At any rate, I would just suggest we ask what the Soviets themselves thought was a "forgone conclusion", or at least what we can gleam about it via their actions. Consider the case of West Berlin. Soon after WWII when they attempted to blockade that half of the city, effectively starve it out, they failed, miserably. This with much of the Red Army still parked near the steps of the Reichstag no less. Either they hadn't the ability, or the will (or both), to stop a simple airlift drop to half of a city within a territory they completely controlled. And what's more, despite their control of East Germany, from 1945-1991 they never attempted (overtly anyway) to retake that half of the city. In fact, save Cuba, (which they backed down from) all of their expansionist aims were directed East. I can only assume that while you may not think their defeat in a war with the West was a forgone conclusion, the Soviet hierarchy, did.
Just my thoughts anyway ... feel free to disagree.
Now to get to it - I must concur with Jambo. I don't see how in retrospect we can all agree that the Soviet's unsustainability as an Empire meant losing the Cold War was a forgone conclusion, yet not see their losing a hot war as a forgone conclusion (especially a protracted one). But more on that in a moment.
My 3 basic reasons, and conclusion.
1.) From what I gather you've noted that Soviet "blitzkrieg" was a neccessity to victory, and would focus around avoiding urban choke points. And my point in this instance is the Soviets have 2 choices in their march forward, both bad. If they are to focus their "punching through" via routes of sparsely populated, rural territory then they would be open to the full weight and might of our superior air power. The only way to avoid such merciless strafing would of course be to prey upon the West's inability (post Vietnam) to stomach mass civilian casualties. In other words they mitigate the carpet bombing by heading to/through those urban areas. In which case you have a determined resistance, defending every square inch of their home territory. This is a lesson the victors of Stalingrad and veterans of Afghanistan would not take lightly. In either case I don't see any "obvious" potential for the dreaded "punch through."
2.) You (Titus) seem to focus much of your angst over the ability of NATO to maintain its cohesiveness. And as exhibit A you note the penchant of France, Spain, Italy et al for finding a way, any way, to weasel out of their NATO obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan (& Libya, etc). I don't think that's an apples to apples comparison, and here's why: there are still legitimate arguments being had (& I fall on the war approach side) on whether the "war on terror" is properly handled as a "war", or should be seen as a police/law enforcement action. Also, the necessity of Iraq, of staying in Afghanistan, America's "war of choices", these are all a part of the domestic discussion in Continental Europe, and have been for 10 years. And I am willing to wager that those same weasels at the lectern would start quoting chapter and verse from the pulpit regarding NATO's "attack on one" policy were it the Red Army barreling into Western Germany with the intent of not stopping until they had replaced Hadrian's Wall with the Iron Curtain. In addition, much of the bravado parylization of Western Europe stems from Political Correctness. This has choked off rationale discussion on how we must deal with Radical Islam (when they'll even mention the words "Islam" and "problem" in the same breath, that is). I don't see such a problem with ethnic Russians within Europe. If for no other reason then ethnic Russians are less likely to form a political PAC and become professional victims.
3.) We mustn't forget that any NATO coalition engaged in repelling a Soviet invasion of Western Germany (forward), would be helmed by a Reagan-Thatcher alliance. There is no measure to how much effort, productivity, and commitment to total war these 2 would muster in this struggle. This matters. Especially for an Soviet Empire (circa the 1980's) whom knew it was but a few fiscal cycles away from internal collapse (this point does in no way negate the necessity/fortitude of the Reagan foot-on-throat confrontation policy as a means of speeding up this decline).
In conclusion ...
"Look, like I said, I'm not saying we couldn't have won a third European war. In fact, I am convinced we would have. I'm simply saying that it isn't the forgone conclusion that many seem to think it is."
I suppose it is this line which puzzles me most of all. I'm not sure I understand it. Isn't stating "I am convinced we would have (won)" the textbook definition of a "forgone conclusion?"
If you mean to say it wouldn't have been as "easy" as many think it would have been, I don't follow there either. I don't think anyone from Eisenhower, to Reagan to the producers of Red Dawn thought it would be "easy" to beat the Reds. They were a Super Power after all. Just inevitable.
At any rate, I would just suggest we ask what the Soviets themselves thought was a "forgone conclusion", or at least what we can gleam about it via their actions. Consider the case of West Berlin. Soon after WWII when they attempted to blockade that half of the city, effectively starve it out, they failed, miserably. This with much of the Red Army still parked near the steps of the Reichstag no less. Either they hadn't the ability, or the will (or both), to stop a simple airlift drop to half of a city within a territory they completely controlled. And what's more, despite their control of East Germany, from 1945-1991 they never attempted (overtly anyway) to retake that half of the city. In fact, save Cuba, (which they backed down from) all of their expansionist aims were directed East. I can only assume that while you may not think their defeat in a war with the West was a forgone conclusion, the Soviet hierarchy, did.
Just my thoughts anyway ... feel free to disagree.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
I knew this would drag out some Red Storm quotes...
Look, like I said, I'm not saying we couldn't have won a third European war. In fact, I am convinced we would have. I'm simply saying that it isn't the forgone conclusion that many seem to think it is.
Further more, I DO think there is a difference between what was happening in Afghanistan and what could have happened in Europe. At the height of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, there were never more than three complete divisions in country. In East Germany ALONE, there were the equivalent of 27 fully equipped and fully trained divisions. Add the other 14 divisions in Poland (Soviets now... I'm not counting the Poles themselves) and 13 in Czechoslovakia, and the entire NATO front line force of 22 divisions was damn near outgunned from the start of the equation. Then you have the "mobile reserve" units... those units that would capitalize on any break-through action that happens at the front... which consisted of two complete army groups: the 27th Tank Army and the 3rd Guards Shock Army (a combined arms army of more than five divisions)... and you begin to see my point, right?
We've actually played simulations that showed that an early (meaning "surprise") attack by the Soviets could produce a shocking rate of advance into the west... and even if the surprise weren't complete (as I doubt it would have been), any hesitation or confusion on the part of the NATO members equalled the same thing.
Also, Afghani success against Soviet armor was almost exclusively via ambush... meaning repeated heavy concentrations of fire and munitions on targets that are unable to function as designed or intended due to artificial constraints. Do you really think that the same formula would have applied in Europe? Just as the Afghani guerrillas used the failures of the Soviets to learn how to fight in mountainous, rugged terrain to their advantage... the Soviets had 40 years of planning and training on how to advance through European terrain to the best of their advantage... unhampered by understood and accepted constraints that limited NATO forces in the event of an invasion.
I don't want this to be a fight... if it is worth further discussion, then lets do it. Otherwise write it off to Titus' worthless musings.
Further more, I DO think there is a difference between what was happening in Afghanistan and what could have happened in Europe. At the height of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, there were never more than three complete divisions in country. In East Germany ALONE, there were the equivalent of 27 fully equipped and fully trained divisions. Add the other 14 divisions in Poland (Soviets now... I'm not counting the Poles themselves) and 13 in Czechoslovakia, and the entire NATO front line force of 22 divisions was damn near outgunned from the start of the equation. Then you have the "mobile reserve" units... those units that would capitalize on any break-through action that happens at the front... which consisted of two complete army groups: the 27th Tank Army and the 3rd Guards Shock Army (a combined arms army of more than five divisions)... and you begin to see my point, right?
We've actually played simulations that showed that an early (meaning "surprise") attack by the Soviets could produce a shocking rate of advance into the west... and even if the surprise weren't complete (as I doubt it would have been), any hesitation or confusion on the part of the NATO members equalled the same thing.
Also, Afghani success against Soviet armor was almost exclusively via ambush... meaning repeated heavy concentrations of fire and munitions on targets that are unable to function as designed or intended due to artificial constraints. Do you really think that the same formula would have applied in Europe? Just as the Afghani guerrillas used the failures of the Soviets to learn how to fight in mountainous, rugged terrain to their advantage... the Soviets had 40 years of planning and training on how to advance through European terrain to the best of their advantage... unhampered by understood and accepted constraints that limited NATO forces in the event of an invasion.
I don't want this to be a fight... if it is worth further discussion, then lets do it. Otherwise write it off to Titus' worthless musings.
Friday, December 17, 2010
"Tell them we can WIN this thing...
... if the Navy gets their shit together!"
I vehemently disagree with the proposal that Soviet armor was impervious to NATO anti-tank weaponry as late as the mid 80s.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 saw tank vs tank action, with massive casualties on the part of the Lebanese armor corps. The resistance in Afghanistan used shoulder launched weapons against Soviet armor throughout the 80s with success. (Keep in mind, Mujaheddin (sp?) foot soldiers did NOT fear Soviet armor... They feared Soviet helicopters.) In the armor battle of the Golan Heights during the Yon Kippur war, two Israeli Centurion tanks destroyed an entire armored battalion of Syrian/Soviet armor.
Even IF the reactive Soviet armor proved successful, it was a one time shot. A second shot in the same location penetrates. One thing the M60 and the early M1s had in abundance was decent fire control, something the Soviets were known to lack. Another thing NATO had that the Soviets weren't big on was a coordinated combined arms doctrine that heavily favored the defensive campaign a European war would have demanded. Throw in an absolute overwhelming air supremacy factor and there's little wonder why the Warsaw Pact stayed behind the Iron Curtain.
Now I am not poo pooing the Red Army, but lets keep some perspective here. The army that faced the Russians in 85 was not qualitatively different from the same army that faced Saddam Hussein in 90-91, and look at how that turned out, stealth or no stealth. The quality of the Russian equipment speaks for itself both historically and tactically. The greatest threat the Soviets represented in a shooting war with NATO was closing the North Atlantic, a scenario Clancy maps out better than anyone ever in Red Storm Rising, and even THAT depended on the fall of Iceland and the loss of SOSUS... Something strategically NATO would not allow.
I vehemently disagree with the proposal that Soviet armor was impervious to NATO anti-tank weaponry as late as the mid 80s.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 saw tank vs tank action, with massive casualties on the part of the Lebanese armor corps. The resistance in Afghanistan used shoulder launched weapons against Soviet armor throughout the 80s with success. (Keep in mind, Mujaheddin (sp?) foot soldiers did NOT fear Soviet armor... They feared Soviet helicopters.) In the armor battle of the Golan Heights during the Yon Kippur war, two Israeli Centurion tanks destroyed an entire armored battalion of Syrian/Soviet armor.
Even IF the reactive Soviet armor proved successful, it was a one time shot. A second shot in the same location penetrates. One thing the M60 and the early M1s had in abundance was decent fire control, something the Soviets were known to lack. Another thing NATO had that the Soviets weren't big on was a coordinated combined arms doctrine that heavily favored the defensive campaign a European war would have demanded. Throw in an absolute overwhelming air supremacy factor and there's little wonder why the Warsaw Pact stayed behind the Iron Curtain.
Now I am not poo pooing the Red Army, but lets keep some perspective here. The army that faced the Russians in 85 was not qualitatively different from the same army that faced Saddam Hussein in 90-91, and look at how that turned out, stealth or no stealth. The quality of the Russian equipment speaks for itself both historically and tactically. The greatest threat the Soviets represented in a shooting war with NATO was closing the North Atlantic, a scenario Clancy maps out better than anyone ever in Red Storm Rising, and even THAT depended on the fall of Iceland and the loss of SOSUS... Something strategically NATO would not allow.
A comment...
""Red Army" is a Soviet wank with a political agenda behind it. Ralph Peters wanted to lambast NATO as the talking club it had, in his eyes, become. And he didn't seem to have a very high opinion of Germans in general and the German Army in particular, either...which would show itself again several years later...
IIRC, he told Americans not to buy German products anymore after Chancellor Schröder (rightly so, but for all the wrong reasons) in 2003 declined German participation in the invasion of Iraq. Am I the only one who got reminded of "Deutsche, kauft nicht bei Juden"? "
Don't know who wrote this (left as anonymous), but I'll address it anyway.
Is there historical evidence that NATO has successfully filled its role every time since its inception? It wasn't formed only to counter Soviet aggression, mind you... any attack on a member state was to be seen as an attack on all member states, and actions to be taken accordingly. In Lebanon in '81 and in Tripoli in '86, many member states refused to cooperate with American actions to counter terrorists and terrorism. Planning and execution of NATO actions in Yugoslavia in both '95 and '99 showed a real lack of unity and support for the effort, didn't it? Have all member states fulfilled their treaty obligations in regards to the stated goals and strategies of the NATO effort in Afghanistan?
I can't speak on Mr. Peter's "agenda", but concerns he might have had about NATO's ability to coordinate and cooperate in a time of all-out war seem to have been justified, in my eyes. If nothing else, history shows us that France had a real propensity to want to do what she felt was in "her" best interests, regardless of where that left the rest of the NATO states... and what happens if that sort of division crops up during a Soviet advance through West Germany?
Perhaps we have also forgotten that in 1985, the USSR had within its Red Army more than 300,000 seasoned combat veterans from the Afghanistan war to draw upon, while the West had no real experience under fire... certainly not for troops stationed in Europe exclusively (which includes the US V and VII Corps). Technological disparity isn't something we can completely disregard, but I don't know that we can look back and simply "assume" that the NATO forces would have won outright based on nothing more than the success of designs that we know today. The tanks that beat Saddam in 1991 were NOT the same M1s used in Europe in 1985... those were NOT Abrams tanks (the M1A1 and M1A2 are the more modern versions, called Abrams), and while I still think the M60A3 was a damn fine tank, was there enough of them to counter two entire Soviet tank armies made up entirely of T-72 and T-80 tanks? Not according to some modern day experts at Jane's Defense Quarterly.
More importantly, though, this shouldn't be seen as Titus being "revisionist" again (which I still shudder to hear suggested). I'm not saying we couldn't have won a war in Europe against the Soviets... but I am suggesting that it would have been much tougher, and perhaps a much more "unilateral" effort on the part of the US than many have made allowance for in the past. An entire 20% of the thousand kilometer inter-German border was defended by smaller, far less trained units from nations like the Netherlands, Belgium and France. So much logistical support was depended on from states like Spain, Italy, Denmark and Norway that had it been slow in coming or interrupted at any time, the outcome certainty changes dramatically.
NATO played a very dangerous game... we watched as NATO annually increased its defense spending and preparation all through the 1980s while at the same time the political climate in western Europe drifted more and more towards a pacifist position (evidenced by the actions and inaction of the members already mentioned). Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan in a poorly disguised attempt to take attention away from the failing Soviet domestic economy and focus it on a foreign war... what if those that followed him had done the same when the Afghan war finally came to a bitter end? Could we have counted on NATO unity and cooperation in light of a surprise attack even as late as 1989? Or as early as 1984?
That's the question I'm posing, more than any other.
IIRC, he told Americans not to buy German products anymore after Chancellor Schröder (rightly so, but for all the wrong reasons) in 2003 declined German participation in the invasion of Iraq. Am I the only one who got reminded of "Deutsche, kauft nicht bei Juden"? "
Don't know who wrote this (left as anonymous), but I'll address it anyway.
Is there historical evidence that NATO has successfully filled its role every time since its inception? It wasn't formed only to counter Soviet aggression, mind you... any attack on a member state was to be seen as an attack on all member states, and actions to be taken accordingly. In Lebanon in '81 and in Tripoli in '86, many member states refused to cooperate with American actions to counter terrorists and terrorism. Planning and execution of NATO actions in Yugoslavia in both '95 and '99 showed a real lack of unity and support for the effort, didn't it? Have all member states fulfilled their treaty obligations in regards to the stated goals and strategies of the NATO effort in Afghanistan?
I can't speak on Mr. Peter's "agenda", but concerns he might have had about NATO's ability to coordinate and cooperate in a time of all-out war seem to have been justified, in my eyes. If nothing else, history shows us that France had a real propensity to want to do what she felt was in "her" best interests, regardless of where that left the rest of the NATO states... and what happens if that sort of division crops up during a Soviet advance through West Germany?
Perhaps we have also forgotten that in 1985, the USSR had within its Red Army more than 300,000 seasoned combat veterans from the Afghanistan war to draw upon, while the West had no real experience under fire... certainly not for troops stationed in Europe exclusively (which includes the US V and VII Corps). Technological disparity isn't something we can completely disregard, but I don't know that we can look back and simply "assume" that the NATO forces would have won outright based on nothing more than the success of designs that we know today. The tanks that beat Saddam in 1991 were NOT the same M1s used in Europe in 1985... those were NOT Abrams tanks (the M1A1 and M1A2 are the more modern versions, called Abrams), and while I still think the M60A3 was a damn fine tank, was there enough of them to counter two entire Soviet tank armies made up entirely of T-72 and T-80 tanks? Not according to some modern day experts at Jane's Defense Quarterly.
More importantly, though, this shouldn't be seen as Titus being "revisionist" again (which I still shudder to hear suggested). I'm not saying we couldn't have won a war in Europe against the Soviets... but I am suggesting that it would have been much tougher, and perhaps a much more "unilateral" effort on the part of the US than many have made allowance for in the past. An entire 20% of the thousand kilometer inter-German border was defended by smaller, far less trained units from nations like the Netherlands, Belgium and France. So much logistical support was depended on from states like Spain, Italy, Denmark and Norway that had it been slow in coming or interrupted at any time, the outcome certainty changes dramatically.
NATO played a very dangerous game... we watched as NATO annually increased its defense spending and preparation all through the 1980s while at the same time the political climate in western Europe drifted more and more towards a pacifist position (evidenced by the actions and inaction of the members already mentioned). Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan in a poorly disguised attempt to take attention away from the failing Soviet domestic economy and focus it on a foreign war... what if those that followed him had done the same when the Afghan war finally came to a bitter end? Could we have counted on NATO unity and cooperation in light of a surprise attack even as late as 1989? Or as early as 1984?
That's the question I'm posing, more than any other.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
More thoughts on my "chain" post...
I was hanging plastic over our drafty, century-old sash windows today (in an almost hopeless effort to keep some of the drafts at bay) and had ample time to ponder my previous post.
There are several scenarios that are used in my references that give the advance of Soviet forces into the West at as far as the Weser River at Hameln by the end of the second day's fighting (48 hours). This is a staggering amount of ground given up to the Soviets, but the reasoning isn't inferior NATO equipment or tactics, or even superior tactics or numbers on the part of the Soviets. It is the inability of CENTAG units (mainly German, British and Netherland divisions) to mobilize and coordinate fast enough to counter the speed with which the Soviets moved over ground in the first hours of the fighting (exactly as their doctrines called for... modern blitzkrieg). In the NORTHAG and SOUTHAG areas (where there were greater concentrations of US and British divisions), these same scenarios don't show the rapid advances that the CENTAG area shows.
Without saying as much, I think this is because it was understood that the US and British divisions in Germany would hold ground better than any other divisions... including the Germans. It was a given fact that the Bundeswehr would fight tooth-and-nail for every inch of ground... but I think it was also understood that this strategy provided for as many obstacles as it did up-sides. Both the Soviets and the US/British fully understood the value in giving some ground in favor of that which can be better defended (the Sovs learned that lesson from the Germans themselves in 1941-42... the Americans and Brits during Market Garden in 1944). In other words, the US might allow a 10 km advance that took the Soviets 24 hours to achieve at great cost... but by trying to stop the Soviets immediately, a breakout was probable that would open the rear to Soviet armor and allow for a far greater gain at less cost over a shorter period of time.
Another factor that I am not sure was ever adequately covered in the more famous "novels" on the topic was that of civilians. An invasion of West Germany by the Soviets would have forced the evacuation of no fewer than 1.4 million people from their homes, over an area the size of the MS/LA state line. Even today, 30 years later, there are no adequate means to move that many people in even as much as five days, let alone as few as two or three. NATO units would have been forced to stop and defend areas where civilian casualties might be greatest, even if it meant loosing the strategic or tactical initiative (if it was ever held at all). NATO would no longer be allowed the luxury of dictating where and when they would choose to defend ground... the civilians and refugees would do that for them. Shockingly enough... I had always assumed that the Soviets would USE the roads, rails, canals and bridges as they moved west, but it seems that standard doctrines called for unit commanders in the farthest forward areas of the front to avoid them because of civilian traffic. It was assumed from the start that bridges and tunnels would, wherever possible, be destroyed to deny them use by the Soviets... so it was better for the Soviets to advance along axis' that avoided such choke points anyway. What better way to encircle and cut off NATO units than to force them to protect and defend civilians while the Soviets shoot past towards the rear on secondary routes or open ground?
Honestly... imagine a scene like the one we all remember from Katrina: Every major road and interstate running with traffic (including contra-flow traffic) away from the danger zone. Then add the necessity of moving millions of tons of equipment and tens of thousands of troops against this tide towards the danger zone. How does that work to the advantage of the NATO troops and commanders?
Well... just more musings.
There are several scenarios that are used in my references that give the advance of Soviet forces into the West at as far as the Weser River at Hameln by the end of the second day's fighting (48 hours). This is a staggering amount of ground given up to the Soviets, but the reasoning isn't inferior NATO equipment or tactics, or even superior tactics or numbers on the part of the Soviets. It is the inability of CENTAG units (mainly German, British and Netherland divisions) to mobilize and coordinate fast enough to counter the speed with which the Soviets moved over ground in the first hours of the fighting (exactly as their doctrines called for... modern blitzkrieg). In the NORTHAG and SOUTHAG areas (where there were greater concentrations of US and British divisions), these same scenarios don't show the rapid advances that the CENTAG area shows.
Without saying as much, I think this is because it was understood that the US and British divisions in Germany would hold ground better than any other divisions... including the Germans. It was a given fact that the Bundeswehr would fight tooth-and-nail for every inch of ground... but I think it was also understood that this strategy provided for as many obstacles as it did up-sides. Both the Soviets and the US/British fully understood the value in giving some ground in favor of that which can be better defended (the Sovs learned that lesson from the Germans themselves in 1941-42... the Americans and Brits during Market Garden in 1944). In other words, the US might allow a 10 km advance that took the Soviets 24 hours to achieve at great cost... but by trying to stop the Soviets immediately, a breakout was probable that would open the rear to Soviet armor and allow for a far greater gain at less cost over a shorter period of time.
Another factor that I am not sure was ever adequately covered in the more famous "novels" on the topic was that of civilians. An invasion of West Germany by the Soviets would have forced the evacuation of no fewer than 1.4 million people from their homes, over an area the size of the MS/LA state line. Even today, 30 years later, there are no adequate means to move that many people in even as much as five days, let alone as few as two or three. NATO units would have been forced to stop and defend areas where civilian casualties might be greatest, even if it meant loosing the strategic or tactical initiative (if it was ever held at all). NATO would no longer be allowed the luxury of dictating where and when they would choose to defend ground... the civilians and refugees would do that for them. Shockingly enough... I had always assumed that the Soviets would USE the roads, rails, canals and bridges as they moved west, but it seems that standard doctrines called for unit commanders in the farthest forward areas of the front to avoid them because of civilian traffic. It was assumed from the start that bridges and tunnels would, wherever possible, be destroyed to deny them use by the Soviets... so it was better for the Soviets to advance along axis' that avoided such choke points anyway. What better way to encircle and cut off NATO units than to force them to protect and defend civilians while the Soviets shoot past towards the rear on secondary routes or open ground?
Honestly... imagine a scene like the one we all remember from Katrina: Every major road and interstate running with traffic (including contra-flow traffic) away from the danger zone. Then add the necessity of moving millions of tons of equipment and tens of thousands of troops against this tide towards the danger zone. How does that work to the advantage of the NATO troops and commanders?
Well... just more musings.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
A chain is only as strong...
I wrote that I had rediscovered some of my old "cold war" books in boxes that haven't been opened since I moved to NEPA, and I've been reading them a lot lately. This reading has forced me to look at things from a "Monday morning quarterback" point of view, because the Cold War is over and the "good guys" won.
The quote I was making in the title is because some of the books I read and reread were written with the opinion that the Soviet forces arrayed against us in Eastern Europe would have posed a very great risk for our forces, and I think history has relegated this opinion to the "not possible" box. Our military successes since the end of the Cold War have been so overwhelming that the possibility that we could have faced real opposition against the Soviets seems highly unlikely.
Is this the case, however?
For example, in 1997, Jane's Defense Review published a study made by US and German experts who determined that the best tank ammunition of the period between 1985 and 1991 could not have penetrated the "Contact-5" explosive reactive armor (ERA) of the bulk of Soviet forces category one T-72 variant MBTs... of which there were more than 16,000 assigned to service in Eastern Europe as part of the Warsaw Pact arsenal. How quickly could we have stopped a Soviet-led advance into West Germany of we didn't have ammunition that would penetrate the armor of most of the Soviet tanks facing us?
By 1985, more than half of all our (US) front line MBTs were the new M1 designs, having replaced the older M60A3 variants. The M1 was faster, heavier and better armed and armored... but had a far more limited capacity in the field than the M60A3 did. It used nearly twice as much fuel as the Patton (which was a diesel engine machine) and required dedicated maintenance and repair facilities that the existing NATO forces did not have in place until 1990. The M60A3, being a variant of the M48 design, was custom made for both rapid armored advance tactics and infantry support roles, while the M1 was not. The M60 had indirect fire capacity (meaning it could take on a role of artillery support, if needed) and could act as infantry support and cover in an open battlefield environment. The M1 could not do either of these (and still can't).
Integration of new, more advanced designs and platforms (like the Bradley IFV in 1981) showed a problem in ensuring adequate tactical training to incorporate the new weapons and platforms into existing strategic and tactical planning (evidence of which can be seen in the 1991 actions in Kuwait). I'm not suggesting the Soviets had better "stuff"... only that the Soviets kept their designs focused on tactics and planning that didn't require major shifts in planning or training.
In fact, I'm saying the NATO forces DID have better stuff (especially in the area of air power)... but even today we know that the preponderance of numbers rested comfortably with the Soviets. They were ready and willing to see a 25% to 45% HIGHER attrition rate than the NATO forces because they knew the supply problems would work to their advantage from start to finish. American strategic reinforcement plans like REFORGER needed at least 72 hours to begin airlifting troops to pre-planned supply areas, and most Soviet plans called for major penetrations of Soviet forces into West Germany within 48 hours.
Most importantly, though, is the idea that there was a "weak link" in the European defense chain.
What if NATO itself were that weak link?
The entire scope of western European security against Soviet aggression was centered on the NATO alliance and its ability to counter any and all Soviet moves against it. It is one of the longest lived treaty organizations in history, and (by its very definition) has succeeded in protecting its member states completely since Day One.
But has it actually ever been tested?
NATO involvement in efforts like Bosnia in '95 and Greater Yugoslavia in '99 and Afghanistan in '03 (under the name ISAF) have shown a real capacity within NATO for communication, planning and cooperative breakdowns. Since the withdrawal of France as a NATO member under the Presidency of Charles de Gualle, there has been a real, measurable question about which members would and would not participate in NATO operations... and this question has never been adequately addressed since 1957. Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Norway, the Netherlands, and Iceland have all restricted participation of their military units and personnel since that time, in one way or another... with both France and Italy repeatedly looking for means by which they could secure separate "peace" in the event of a new European conflict.
In the years between 1981 and 1983, Italy refused port privileges to the US Navy because of policies and actions being carried out in Lebanon for any ship suspected of carrying "nuclear weapons" or that may be/have been involved in the effort (which amounted to the entire Mediterranean fleet). In 1986, Italy, Spain and France all denied the US overflight use of their respective air spaces and "closed" the use of continental US airbases to the bombing mission against terrorist-supporting Libya... despite the overall support that NATO command gave to the planned air strikes. Is this evidence that, even in light of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, NATO would not have been able to remain united long enough or early enough to have effectively mounted a defense and/or counter offensive?
I guess my point is this: Almost every single source on the subject of the hypothetical invasion of western Europe by the Warsaw Pact nations makes the case that a weakened NATO resolve would be enough to ensure at least initial Soviet victory... and these sources are the roots to such successful works as those made by Tom Clancy, Sir John Toland, Harold Coyle, et al.
Grand and vast unifying organizations like the League of Nations, the United Nations and NATO have all shown themselves to be less-than-perfect, and in some cases... even detrimental to the overall effort of securing peace and security for member states. Knowing what we know now, could we look at what might have been and honestly say that "victory" for the US and her allies was a forgone conclusion?
The quote I was making in the title is because some of the books I read and reread were written with the opinion that the Soviet forces arrayed against us in Eastern Europe would have posed a very great risk for our forces, and I think history has relegated this opinion to the "not possible" box. Our military successes since the end of the Cold War have been so overwhelming that the possibility that we could have faced real opposition against the Soviets seems highly unlikely.
Is this the case, however?
For example, in 1997, Jane's Defense Review published a study made by US and German experts who determined that the best tank ammunition of the period between 1985 and 1991 could not have penetrated the "Contact-5" explosive reactive armor (ERA) of the bulk of Soviet forces category one T-72 variant MBTs... of which there were more than 16,000 assigned to service in Eastern Europe as part of the Warsaw Pact arsenal. How quickly could we have stopped a Soviet-led advance into West Germany of we didn't have ammunition that would penetrate the armor of most of the Soviet tanks facing us?
By 1985, more than half of all our (US) front line MBTs were the new M1 designs, having replaced the older M60A3 variants. The M1 was faster, heavier and better armed and armored... but had a far more limited capacity in the field than the M60A3 did. It used nearly twice as much fuel as the Patton (which was a diesel engine machine) and required dedicated maintenance and repair facilities that the existing NATO forces did not have in place until 1990. The M60A3, being a variant of the M48 design, was custom made for both rapid armored advance tactics and infantry support roles, while the M1 was not. The M60 had indirect fire capacity (meaning it could take on a role of artillery support, if needed) and could act as infantry support and cover in an open battlefield environment. The M1 could not do either of these (and still can't).
Integration of new, more advanced designs and platforms (like the Bradley IFV in 1981) showed a problem in ensuring adequate tactical training to incorporate the new weapons and platforms into existing strategic and tactical planning (evidence of which can be seen in the 1991 actions in Kuwait). I'm not suggesting the Soviets had better "stuff"... only that the Soviets kept their designs focused on tactics and planning that didn't require major shifts in planning or training.
In fact, I'm saying the NATO forces DID have better stuff (especially in the area of air power)... but even today we know that the preponderance of numbers rested comfortably with the Soviets. They were ready and willing to see a 25% to 45% HIGHER attrition rate than the NATO forces because they knew the supply problems would work to their advantage from start to finish. American strategic reinforcement plans like REFORGER needed at least 72 hours to begin airlifting troops to pre-planned supply areas, and most Soviet plans called for major penetrations of Soviet forces into West Germany within 48 hours.
Most importantly, though, is the idea that there was a "weak link" in the European defense chain.
What if NATO itself were that weak link?
The entire scope of western European security against Soviet aggression was centered on the NATO alliance and its ability to counter any and all Soviet moves against it. It is one of the longest lived treaty organizations in history, and (by its very definition) has succeeded in protecting its member states completely since Day One.
But has it actually ever been tested?
NATO involvement in efforts like Bosnia in '95 and Greater Yugoslavia in '99 and Afghanistan in '03 (under the name ISAF) have shown a real capacity within NATO for communication, planning and cooperative breakdowns. Since the withdrawal of France as a NATO member under the Presidency of Charles de Gualle, there has been a real, measurable question about which members would and would not participate in NATO operations... and this question has never been adequately addressed since 1957. Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Norway, the Netherlands, and Iceland have all restricted participation of their military units and personnel since that time, in one way or another... with both France and Italy repeatedly looking for means by which they could secure separate "peace" in the event of a new European conflict.
In the years between 1981 and 1983, Italy refused port privileges to the US Navy because of policies and actions being carried out in Lebanon for any ship suspected of carrying "nuclear weapons" or that may be/have been involved in the effort (which amounted to the entire Mediterranean fleet). In 1986, Italy, Spain and France all denied the US overflight use of their respective air spaces and "closed" the use of continental US airbases to the bombing mission against terrorist-supporting Libya... despite the overall support that NATO command gave to the planned air strikes. Is this evidence that, even in light of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, NATO would not have been able to remain united long enough or early enough to have effectively mounted a defense and/or counter offensive?
I guess my point is this: Almost every single source on the subject of the hypothetical invasion of western Europe by the Warsaw Pact nations makes the case that a weakened NATO resolve would be enough to ensure at least initial Soviet victory... and these sources are the roots to such successful works as those made by Tom Clancy, Sir John Toland, Harold Coyle, et al.
Grand and vast unifying organizations like the League of Nations, the United Nations and NATO have all shown themselves to be less-than-perfect, and in some cases... even detrimental to the overall effort of securing peace and security for member states. Knowing what we know now, could we look at what might have been and honestly say that "victory" for the US and her allies was a forgone conclusion?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Sick kids...
Jacob has been running a fever for damn near two days. That's two days where he simply cannot sleep in his own room because he keeps waking up needing fever reducer doses and water, and Jake doesn't wake up well at all. In fact, last night at about 1:30 am, he woke up and started crying and calling for help. I went upstairs and found him and Liz in the bathroom, but we couldn't get anything out of Jake's mouth except "help me". We determined later that he never really woke up... he was still asleep. Takes after his "Uncle Jambo" in that regard, huh?
So, Tom takes the couch for the last two nights... ouch.
As I write this... Jake is finishing up a nice vomit in the downstairs bathroom. Luckily, if there is a bright side, its that Jake isn't the "sissy" that his mother and sister are. When he is nauseous, he gets up and goes to the bathroom to puke. No fuss (other than an announcement to everyone that can hear him) and no crying or whining.
Damn flu seems to have landed right as my weekend approaches and that spectacular winter storm that rolled through the midwest is due to hit here.
So, Tom takes the couch for the last two nights... ouch.
As I write this... Jake is finishing up a nice vomit in the downstairs bathroom. Luckily, if there is a bright side, its that Jake isn't the "sissy" that his mother and sister are. When he is nauseous, he gets up and goes to the bathroom to puke. No fuss (other than an announcement to everyone that can hear him) and no crying or whining.
Damn flu seems to have landed right as my weekend approaches and that spectacular winter storm that rolled through the midwest is due to hit here.
Wow... really?
When did you start watching "The Young Turks"? Liberal radio's biggest success story or not... it's still a spin-off of liberal talk radio on Sirius Satellite Radio. Frankly, I'm even surprised you know who they are, let alone linked the show to this blog.
Kudos for finding the other side of the coin to show how badly this President is managing his image, though... I like that.
Kudos for finding the other side of the coin to show how badly this President is managing his image, though... I like that.
Monday, December 13, 2010
"Just go."
I couldn't resist making mention of this here. This is why I refer to Clinton (Bill) as "the Anikan of politics." All the power & ability the Force has to offer, yet he chose the dark side ... too bad really.
At any rate, the joint press conference of Bill Clinton and President Obama was bizarre, and made me laugh out loud (Bill's "just go" line in particular), as did the commentary from "The Young Turks" in THIS 6 minute+ presentation.
Look, if you have a job, any job, the last thing you do is stand side by side in front of your boss with a guy that used to have that job, and was much better at it (as much as that sentence pains me to write).
At any rate, the joint press conference of Bill Clinton and President Obama was bizarre, and made me laugh out loud (Bill's "just go" line in particular), as did the commentary from "The Young Turks" in THIS 6 minute+ presentation.
Look, if you have a job, any job, the last thing you do is stand side by side in front of your boss with a guy that used to have that job, and was much better at it (as much as that sentence pains me to write).
Celebrating "dark" history ...
Perhaps I'm reading too much into your back to back posts on ominous events in history, but I didn't think it an accident. Celebrating South Carolina's secession tantamount to Japan marking in celebration the Rape of Nanking? Not a direct compasrison mind you, I know you weren't intending that, but the posts seemed to parallel each other, at least a little.
I've been thinking about this SC deal since I read your post yesterday. It's a bit of an odd thing. I was raised in Mississippi. I am a proud Mississippian. I grew up with teachers, neighbors and various members of my local community participating in Civil War reenactments. The gents were always giddy to put on their dress greys ... precious few were as excited about donning blue.
Why?
I think (and this is my arm chair socio-political/psychological analysis) that this desire to "celebrate" being on the wrong side of history has a sort of allure unique to being "bad" (as in a girl's attraction to the smoking biker "bad"). Sometimes that allure is personal - the South seceded, its part of the history there, and people often try and find some way to celebrate what is an immovable, undeniable part of their heritage, even if it was ultimately the losing/wrong side. We watch movies and TV programs celebrating the mafia. They are romantic figures, despite being part of a ruthless, criminal enterprise. The same with bank robbers, gun slingers of the Old West, etc. My employer's entire motif is built around the celebration of an Empire that ruthlessly suppressed personal liberty, had an active slave trade, and warred almost continuously. In fact, our most frequented restaurant is named "Neros." An emperor who's second most infamous act (after the fiddle-fire episode) was taking a blade to his pregnant wife, and gutting her. One can scarcely imagine a more horrific act. I always thought his name a curious choice for a steak house. And I think it safe to assume that the vast majority of patrons that walk through our doors each year are Christian. A notable achievement by the casino's founder given the last of the "5 Good Emperors", Marcus Arlieus, mercilessly persecuted the members of a "rebellious" faith known as Christianity.
Why some "dark" chapters in human history are "celebrated", even glorified, while others are not is a fantastic sociological study. And one we won't fully answer here ... but hell, it's our blog, so like Nero, I'll take a stab: it seems to me that be it mobsters, bank robbers, gun slingers, gladiators, emperors, the confederacy, et al, there is something about the human condition, the American condition, that is attracted to the story of the "rebel", especially if his odds of defeating his adversary/maintaining his power are slim to none, and his means (to his end) break modern protocol for accepted behavior and norms.
To bring it back to South Carolina ... Look, I get the South wanting to "celebrate" the sacrifice of their ancestor's willingness to run head first into a hail of bullets, under the most dire of war time conditions. But to celebrate 2o December, 1860 (the very act of secession) over say May 23rd, 1788 (the very act of joining these United States), seems a bit curious to me. For my money - and I say this as a proud Southerner which I will consider myself no matter my geographical location till my last days - I prefer to celebrate the secession of 1776.
I've been thinking about this SC deal since I read your post yesterday. It's a bit of an odd thing. I was raised in Mississippi. I am a proud Mississippian. I grew up with teachers, neighbors and various members of my local community participating in Civil War reenactments. The gents were always giddy to put on their dress greys ... precious few were as excited about donning blue.
Why?
I think (and this is my arm chair socio-political/psychological analysis) that this desire to "celebrate" being on the wrong side of history has a sort of allure unique to being "bad" (as in a girl's attraction to the smoking biker "bad"). Sometimes that allure is personal - the South seceded, its part of the history there, and people often try and find some way to celebrate what is an immovable, undeniable part of their heritage, even if it was ultimately the losing/wrong side. We watch movies and TV programs celebrating the mafia. They are romantic figures, despite being part of a ruthless, criminal enterprise. The same with bank robbers, gun slingers of the Old West, etc. My employer's entire motif is built around the celebration of an Empire that ruthlessly suppressed personal liberty, had an active slave trade, and warred almost continuously. In fact, our most frequented restaurant is named "Neros." An emperor who's second most infamous act (after the fiddle-fire episode) was taking a blade to his pregnant wife, and gutting her. One can scarcely imagine a more horrific act. I always thought his name a curious choice for a steak house. And I think it safe to assume that the vast majority of patrons that walk through our doors each year are Christian. A notable achievement by the casino's founder given the last of the "5 Good Emperors", Marcus Arlieus, mercilessly persecuted the members of a "rebellious" faith known as Christianity.
Why some "dark" chapters in human history are "celebrated", even glorified, while others are not is a fantastic sociological study. And one we won't fully answer here ... but hell, it's our blog, so like Nero, I'll take a stab: it seems to me that be it mobsters, bank robbers, gun slingers, gladiators, emperors, the confederacy, et al, there is something about the human condition, the American condition, that is attracted to the story of the "rebel", especially if his odds of defeating his adversary/maintaining his power are slim to none, and his means (to his end) break modern protocol for accepted behavior and norms.
To bring it back to South Carolina ... Look, I get the South wanting to "celebrate" the sacrifice of their ancestor's willingness to run head first into a hail of bullets, under the most dire of war time conditions. But to celebrate 2o December, 1860 (the very act of secession) over say May 23rd, 1788 (the very act of joining these United States), seems a bit curious to me. For my money - and I say this as a proud Southerner which I will consider myself no matter my geographical location till my last days - I prefer to celebrate the secession of 1776.
Today...
I'm not a fan of dwelling on these sorts of events, as I've recently said... but Dec 13 has a pointed past.
On Dec. 13, 1937, the Imperial Japanese Army entered the Chinese capital city of Nanking. Thus began the six-week long systematic destruction of the city that is today called the "Rape of Nanking".
300,000 murders. No fewer than 51,500 "sanctioned" rapes. 70% of the city destroyed by arson (not by incendiary effects of munitions, mind you). Uncounted thousands of cases of looting and vandalism. Brutality on a scale not imagined since the end of the "dark ages".
We all know that the Emperor was not tried for his role in war crimes after the Japanese surrender, and I think we all see the reasoning behind this... but there are compelling cases made that do not get much attention that say he should have been tried. For example, Hirohito (now exclusively called "the Showa Emperor" in Japan, because he is dead) personally appointed his uncle, Prince Asaka, as the over-all commander of the assault forces in and around Nanking. He did this because he didn't trust Asaka and wanted him out of Tokyo... he referred to Asaka as "not good" and thought he might try and take the throne. There is no serious doubt that Asaka knew of what was happening in Nanking after Dec 13... yet neither he, nor anyone else in the Imperial Family were charged or put on trial after the war. Asaka denied that any misconduct ever occurred in regards to Japanese military personnel in Nanking right to his dying day. Even today, the government of Japan "hides" facts. The international release of the American movie "The Last Emperor" was edited before release in Japan so that all scenes and references to the Nanking massacre were removed.
Tragic history, huh?
On Dec. 13, 1937, the Imperial Japanese Army entered the Chinese capital city of Nanking. Thus began the six-week long systematic destruction of the city that is today called the "Rape of Nanking".
300,000 murders. No fewer than 51,500 "sanctioned" rapes. 70% of the city destroyed by arson (not by incendiary effects of munitions, mind you). Uncounted thousands of cases of looting and vandalism. Brutality on a scale not imagined since the end of the "dark ages".
We all know that the Emperor was not tried for his role in war crimes after the Japanese surrender, and I think we all see the reasoning behind this... but there are compelling cases made that do not get much attention that say he should have been tried. For example, Hirohito (now exclusively called "the Showa Emperor" in Japan, because he is dead) personally appointed his uncle, Prince Asaka, as the over-all commander of the assault forces in and around Nanking. He did this because he didn't trust Asaka and wanted him out of Tokyo... he referred to Asaka as "not good" and thought he might try and take the throne. There is no serious doubt that Asaka knew of what was happening in Nanking after Dec 13... yet neither he, nor anyone else in the Imperial Family were charged or put on trial after the war. Asaka denied that any misconduct ever occurred in regards to Japanese military personnel in Nanking right to his dying day. Even today, the government of Japan "hides" facts. The international release of the American movie "The Last Emperor" was edited before release in Japan so that all scenes and references to the Nanking massacre were removed.
Tragic history, huh?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
When is it okay to "celebrate" history?
Seems a funny question, doesn't it?
Just a few days ago, we all (in one way or another) remembered Pearl Harbor's attack on 12-7-41. 9-11 is a date that will never be forgotten, either. We've made posts concerning Armistice Day (now Memorial Day) and the significance of "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month".
None of these, however, can be considered "celebrations" though... right? There are no parades, or parties, or days off from work and school held on the anniversary of V-J Day... or June 6th... because these aren't celebratory events.
There are those who are planning a state-wide event in SC this month to memorialize the secession of South Carolina from the Union in 1860. Period costumes, mint juleps, bands playing "Dixie", parades of men in military regalia from the Civil War... is this okay?
We "celebrate" things like the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Mother's and Father's Day, Thanksgiving... these are events and ideas worth celebrating. Days like Memorial Day have celebratory aspects... but it is to celebrate the sacrifice that the men (and women) that have placed themselves between us and "war's desolation" and NOT the wars themselves. Who would hold a parade on 9-11? We take the time to remember the event, and renew our vigilance against a repeat attack, but we don't celebrate the day. Why would the people (even a few of them) of South Carolina celebrate 12-20-1860? It was an event that brought about the eventual (and inevitable, I think) destruction of every major city in the State, killed fully 25% of all the white males from SC who served in the CSA, brought about the decades of Reconstruction that the State STILL hasn't completely recovered from, and devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of people over the course of the next century (literally).
I'm not opposed to people remembering the sacrifice that these soldiers and sailors made in defense of their homes and State... but to celebrate the event that brought about the destruction and threat to the same is just about as asinine as I can imagine.
Am I wrong?
Just a few days ago, we all (in one way or another) remembered Pearl Harbor's attack on 12-7-41. 9-11 is a date that will never be forgotten, either. We've made posts concerning Armistice Day (now Memorial Day) and the significance of "the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month".
None of these, however, can be considered "celebrations" though... right? There are no parades, or parties, or days off from work and school held on the anniversary of V-J Day... or June 6th... because these aren't celebratory events.
There are those who are planning a state-wide event in SC this month to memorialize the secession of South Carolina from the Union in 1860. Period costumes, mint juleps, bands playing "Dixie", parades of men in military regalia from the Civil War... is this okay?
We "celebrate" things like the Fourth of July, Labor Day, Mother's and Father's Day, Thanksgiving... these are events and ideas worth celebrating. Days like Memorial Day have celebratory aspects... but it is to celebrate the sacrifice that the men (and women) that have placed themselves between us and "war's desolation" and NOT the wars themselves. Who would hold a parade on 9-11? We take the time to remember the event, and renew our vigilance against a repeat attack, but we don't celebrate the day. Why would the people (even a few of them) of South Carolina celebrate 12-20-1860? It was an event that brought about the eventual (and inevitable, I think) destruction of every major city in the State, killed fully 25% of all the white males from SC who served in the CSA, brought about the decades of Reconstruction that the State STILL hasn't completely recovered from, and devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of people over the course of the next century (literally).
I'm not opposed to people remembering the sacrifice that these soldiers and sailors made in defense of their homes and State... but to celebrate the event that brought about the destruction and threat to the same is just about as asinine as I can imagine.
Am I wrong?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Furthermore...
I'll tell you what I think...
The most disturbing trend of the last four years is NOT the "progressive" trend that so much of America has seemingly embraced... that happens with fair regularity every quarter century or so. No, the problem I see is the shocking regularity with which terms like "wealth redistribution" and "wealth equality" are bantered about in everyday conversation and debate.
These terms are not being used in a critical context either. They are discussed, debated and even defended by sources of information and ideas that really have no cause or justification to use them. Worse than all others are the ones within our own Congress that use these terms on an almost daily basis.
Not even 30 years ago, the use of these terms (and any others like them) would have sent shock waves through the electorate... because they are taken directly from socialist and communist sources.
Has this trend developed simply because "communism" is dead as we knew it? Does the specter no longer exist because the "eternal source" (i.e. the USSR) has gone belly-up? Perhaps... I can't deny the possibility, but it doesn't matter in the long run. The facts remain that socialism on a macro-economic or political scale, in almost any of its complete forms... DOES NOT WORK. It is antithetical to damn near everything that this nation has stood for since 1776, and as such it should not be "okay" to simply throw around Marxist jargon like it was mainstream, functional socio-political terminology.
Now, since you all know me as well as you do... even our frequent readers must know I'm as guilty of this as anyone you care to name... I will admit that my first reaction to the use of terms like this in conversation with a Democrat or a liberal typically results in my calling them (actually calling them, to their faces) Marxists, Maoists, Soviets, or any one of a baker's dozen other labels that do no justice to my position and result only in the alienation of the person in question. Ryan could write volumes on the times I have done this to him by routinely referring to him as a "fascist" anytime he began one of his "my country, right or wrong" rants. I was wrong then, and I don't think it is the way to go now.
However, if I or any of you encounter someone that wants to use such terms or phrases because they think it "hip" or that it lends some sort of scholastic "halo" to their position in a discussion, I think that it should demanded that they explain, in detail, what those terms actually mean and why they apply to this society's current problems. Since no one that I know can defend terms like "wealth redistribution" as in any way constructive to the effort to improve our economy... because it is antithetical to the very concept of a free society and can't possibly help improve that society at all... it is the quickest, easiest way I know to end the use of such terms without giving immediate offense (like I was so fond of doing back in the day). In an ideal world, this would apply to ANYONE that uses these terms, including Barney Frank and the rest of the raging liberals in Congress. I know that the first time I hear one of my Senators or Representatives use those terms, I'm rifling off a letter asking for an explanation in detail or I promise they will never get my vote again.
The most disturbing trend of the last four years is NOT the "progressive" trend that so much of America has seemingly embraced... that happens with fair regularity every quarter century or so. No, the problem I see is the shocking regularity with which terms like "wealth redistribution" and "wealth equality" are bantered about in everyday conversation and debate.
These terms are not being used in a critical context either. They are discussed, debated and even defended by sources of information and ideas that really have no cause or justification to use them. Worse than all others are the ones within our own Congress that use these terms on an almost daily basis.
Not even 30 years ago, the use of these terms (and any others like them) would have sent shock waves through the electorate... because they are taken directly from socialist and communist sources.
Has this trend developed simply because "communism" is dead as we knew it? Does the specter no longer exist because the "eternal source" (i.e. the USSR) has gone belly-up? Perhaps... I can't deny the possibility, but it doesn't matter in the long run. The facts remain that socialism on a macro-economic or political scale, in almost any of its complete forms... DOES NOT WORK. It is antithetical to damn near everything that this nation has stood for since 1776, and as such it should not be "okay" to simply throw around Marxist jargon like it was mainstream, functional socio-political terminology.
Now, since you all know me as well as you do... even our frequent readers must know I'm as guilty of this as anyone you care to name... I will admit that my first reaction to the use of terms like this in conversation with a Democrat or a liberal typically results in my calling them (actually calling them, to their faces) Marxists, Maoists, Soviets, or any one of a baker's dozen other labels that do no justice to my position and result only in the alienation of the person in question. Ryan could write volumes on the times I have done this to him by routinely referring to him as a "fascist" anytime he began one of his "my country, right or wrong" rants. I was wrong then, and I don't think it is the way to go now.
However, if I or any of you encounter someone that wants to use such terms or phrases because they think it "hip" or that it lends some sort of scholastic "halo" to their position in a discussion, I think that it should demanded that they explain, in detail, what those terms actually mean and why they apply to this society's current problems. Since no one that I know can defend terms like "wealth redistribution" as in any way constructive to the effort to improve our economy... because it is antithetical to the very concept of a free society and can't possibly help improve that society at all... it is the quickest, easiest way I know to end the use of such terms without giving immediate offense (like I was so fond of doing back in the day). In an ideal world, this would apply to ANYONE that uses these terms, including Barney Frank and the rest of the raging liberals in Congress. I know that the first time I hear one of my Senators or Representatives use those terms, I'm rifling off a letter asking for an explanation in detail or I promise they will never get my vote again.
I think you missed it...
Or I read your post wrong.
Pelosi has one reason to fight these compromise measures in regards to tax cuts: if they work the way the GOP says they will, then everything Pelosi has worked towards since 2006 will be undermined to a point of no return.
Obama has just about admitted this by his participation in the tax cut compromise... but should the evidence swing overwhelmingly towards the conservative position (as I think it would), Pelosi's hard-line position makes her the obvious "road block" on the road to recovery.
On the other hand, Obama looks like a man willing to work across aisles to get things back on track. He need not admit to every single aspect of the benefits stemming from GOP tax positions... he can play the age old game of "it only took time for MY efforts to prove their worth" or something to that effect. Pelosi can't do that. She's taken the position that all that is wrong is BECAUSE of the Bush tax cuts... Obama has avoided that particular punch.
The danger here is that somehow, through some devilish twist of dark fate... Pelosi might be seen as "right" in all this, and nothing could hurt the conservative cause more than that. In that event, Obama, Pelosi, Reid... all the most liberal Dems can say "We're right!" but everyone from Hannity to Bush Sr. look like utter fools.
However... the chances of THAT sort of disaster can't be any more likely than a solid gold meteor hitting the surface of the earth and wiping out all life as we know it... twice in one week.
Still, its nice to see the Dems back to their rather traditional in-fighting... its like Tip O'Neill were back in the Speaker's chair, isn't it?
Pelosi has one reason to fight these compromise measures in regards to tax cuts: if they work the way the GOP says they will, then everything Pelosi has worked towards since 2006 will be undermined to a point of no return.
Obama has just about admitted this by his participation in the tax cut compromise... but should the evidence swing overwhelmingly towards the conservative position (as I think it would), Pelosi's hard-line position makes her the obvious "road block" on the road to recovery.
On the other hand, Obama looks like a man willing to work across aisles to get things back on track. He need not admit to every single aspect of the benefits stemming from GOP tax positions... he can play the age old game of "it only took time for MY efforts to prove their worth" or something to that effect. Pelosi can't do that. She's taken the position that all that is wrong is BECAUSE of the Bush tax cuts... Obama has avoided that particular punch.
The danger here is that somehow, through some devilish twist of dark fate... Pelosi might be seen as "right" in all this, and nothing could hurt the conservative cause more than that. In that event, Obama, Pelosi, Reid... all the most liberal Dems can say "We're right!" but everyone from Hannity to Bush Sr. look like utter fools.
However... the chances of THAT sort of disaster can't be any more likely than a solid gold meteor hitting the surface of the earth and wiping out all life as we know it... twice in one week.
Still, its nice to see the Dems back to their rather traditional in-fighting... its like Tip O'Neill were back in the Speaker's chair, isn't it?
In defense of the wealthy ...
The President is at odds with his own Party on one aspect of the tax rate "deal." Extending the current tax rates on the upper 2% of earners. In fact the president readily admits he doesn't even like this portion of the deal, but, its the best he can get given the necessity of keeping the middle class cuts in place. Why does he think those cuts necessary? Because the extra money in the economy will result in an estimated 2 million jobs in 2 years, and he even dispatched his top economic advisor, Larry Summers, to the Hill to convince Dems this deal is necessary to avoid a "double dip recession."
I think the GOP has a stronger hand then they assume. This deal should be for a permanent implementation of the current tax rates, not a temporary (2 year) extension. We don't need a temporary economy. And more to the point, isnt the President & his Party sorta trapped by their own rationale? The top 2% provide roughly 50% of federal tax revenue. If keeping half of the money that would otherwise be taken in taxes, in the private sector creates 2 million jobs, then why not create 4 million by allowing the upper 2% to keep their money? See, once you cop to the fact that lower taxes helps repair a damaged economy, you cant then say "but only this group's money will."
But, if it is to be only a temporary extension, I can think of no better time to have this debate again then in 2 years.
I think the GOP has a stronger hand then they assume. This deal should be for a permanent implementation of the current tax rates, not a temporary (2 year) extension. We don't need a temporary economy. And more to the point, isnt the President & his Party sorta trapped by their own rationale? The top 2% provide roughly 50% of federal tax revenue. If keeping half of the money that would otherwise be taken in taxes, in the private sector creates 2 million jobs, then why not create 4 million by allowing the upper 2% to keep their money? See, once you cop to the fact that lower taxes helps repair a damaged economy, you cant then say "but only this group's money will."
But, if it is to be only a temporary extension, I can think of no better time to have this debate again then in 2 years.
Can I get you a nice powdered Chardonnay to go with it?
Here in my adopted home town of Las Vegas our mayor (yes, our mayor) presided over a ceremony this morning unveiling Madame Tussaud's newest addition. And upon revealing the singer's wax likeness he declared today "Lady GaGa Day", noting that you can get a two for one ticket special if you donate a can of meat.
And as I would rather be beaten with a pillow case full of hammers then pay money to stare at wax dummies (ahem), I think I'll pass on the good Mayor's offer. Any wonder why this guy refuses to run for governor? I mean, that would be work.
This act of government business is surpassed in absurdity today by the only public servant capable of such a feat - Nancy Pelosi. Noting "we simply can't afford these tax cuts", she has killed the tax rate compromise the president struck with the GOP only a day ago. Can't afford it huh? This from a woman whom secured passage of the largest deficits in the history of the Republic. And by the way madam, it's not a "cut" if we're simply allowing rates to remain as they were over the last 10 years.
It occured to me that as the first female Speaker of the House it's likely that at some point Miss Tussaud will unveil Mrs. Pelosi's likeness. I'll be curious ... whether the wax or the real dummy will have had more work done on her face. I beseech you Democrats, please, please keep this woman as your leader for as long as possible.
And as I would rather be beaten with a pillow case full of hammers then pay money to stare at wax dummies (ahem), I think I'll pass on the good Mayor's offer. Any wonder why this guy refuses to run for governor? I mean, that would be work.
This act of government business is surpassed in absurdity today by the only public servant capable of such a feat - Nancy Pelosi. Noting "we simply can't afford these tax cuts", she has killed the tax rate compromise the president struck with the GOP only a day ago. Can't afford it huh? This from a woman whom secured passage of the largest deficits in the history of the Republic. And by the way madam, it's not a "cut" if we're simply allowing rates to remain as they were over the last 10 years.
It occured to me that as the first female Speaker of the House it's likely that at some point Miss Tussaud will unveil Mrs. Pelosi's likeness. I'll be curious ... whether the wax or the real dummy will have had more work done on her face. I beseech you Democrats, please, please keep this woman as your leader for as long as possible.
Busy???
I can't speak to the dentist, but that hair cut couldn't take you more then 3 or 4 minutes ... and how long does it take to plug in a Flobee anyway? (hehehe)
I'm with you on the Times Man of the Year, on both counts. If I remember correctly Hitler won it once, and if they (the Times, not Nazis) honestly applied their self proclaimed standard of "the individual with the most impact", good or bad, then in 2001 Bin Laden would of been selected; and with the "most impact" standard almost each and every year either the PoTUS or the Pope would win hands down. Like you said, it means 1/1000th of what it used to & I'd sooner make a point to see who won Playboy Playmate of the year.
Now, as I am a war movie fanatic (in a good way), but am unfamiliar with this "Sharpe" series, please enlighten me on the specifics, and availability.
I'm with you on the Times Man of the Year, on both counts. If I remember correctly Hitler won it once, and if they (the Times, not Nazis) honestly applied their self proclaimed standard of "the individual with the most impact", good or bad, then in 2001 Bin Laden would of been selected; and with the "most impact" standard almost each and every year either the PoTUS or the Pope would win hands down. Like you said, it means 1/1000th of what it used to & I'd sooner make a point to see who won Playboy Playmate of the year.
Now, as I am a war movie fanatic (in a good way), but am unfamiliar with this "Sharpe" series, please enlighten me on the specifics, and availability.
Damn busy days...
Watching The Pacific got me in the mood for more "war shows", and since I have just got done watching BoB again, I'm moving on to my prized collection of all 20 episodes of the BBC Sharpe series. Last night was Sharpe's Rifles, and today is Sharpe's Eagle, Sharpe's Company, and Sharpe's Enemy.
Unfortunately, I have a dentist appointment and a haircut scheduled for myself and Jake... so my TV time is limited.
Don't bother calling... hehe.
Unfortunately, I have a dentist appointment and a haircut scheduled for myself and Jake... so my TV time is limited.
Don't bother calling... hehe.
Person of the Year...
Ryan sent me a text saying that Assange is in the running for Time's "Person of the Year". This isn't particularly surprising... but Ryan made a good point in the text.
As much as Assange has dominated the headlines this year, can he compare to Glenn Beck? Beck (it seems) is also in the running, and while I'm sure the "honor" of this is somewhat tempered by the disdain he holds for the title, one can't entirely argue that Beck has dominated the news by his efforts.
I have almost no desire whatsoever to see who wins, since I think the picking of the "Person" is almost completely arbitrary and inconsistent in its application... but if I had to pick, I'd give it to Beck over Assange. Not because I think Beck is "better" than Assange in his world views (although I do), but because I think that it is better to show the world what the "liberal" agenda is all about... and Assange does that without even trying, while Beck is working to effect change from within the society and its organs.
So, let the choices fall where they may... it really doesn't matter.
As much as Assange has dominated the headlines this year, can he compare to Glenn Beck? Beck (it seems) is also in the running, and while I'm sure the "honor" of this is somewhat tempered by the disdain he holds for the title, one can't entirely argue that Beck has dominated the news by his efforts.
I have almost no desire whatsoever to see who wins, since I think the picking of the "Person" is almost completely arbitrary and inconsistent in its application... but if I had to pick, I'd give it to Beck over Assange. Not because I think Beck is "better" than Assange in his world views (although I do), but because I think that it is better to show the world what the "liberal" agenda is all about... and Assange does that without even trying, while Beck is working to effect change from within the society and its organs.
So, let the choices fall where they may... it really doesn't matter.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Another classic from another age...
At the end of my college experience, and (not coincidently) the end of the Cold War, a book came out called Red Army. This is one of those sleeper books that never quite got the attention that such blockbusters as Red Storm Rising got... not because it isn't as good as a Clancy novel, but because it was written from the perspective of the Soviet soldier.
This book is every bit as good as Red Phoenix by Larry Bond, and is much better (I think) than Team Yankee (Harold Coyle) or The Third World War by Gen. John Hackett. I found it among my clutter of old books that had been packed away after the storm... and it is a remarkably good read.
The age of it must mean that it is available CHEAP on something like Amazon used, so if you are looking for a fun "retro" book to read over the holidays, Ralph Peter's Red Army is a good way to go.
This book is every bit as good as Red Phoenix by Larry Bond, and is much better (I think) than Team Yankee (Harold Coyle) or The Third World War by Gen. John Hackett. I found it among my clutter of old books that had been packed away after the storm... and it is a remarkably good read.
The age of it must mean that it is available CHEAP on something like Amazon used, so if you are looking for a fun "retro" book to read over the holidays, Ralph Peter's Red Army is a good way to go.
Liberal versus Atheist
I was prepping a desert for after dinner (banana bread... yum!), and pondering Ryan's last.
In a world where my traditional Judeo-Christian values are under almost constant attack by the liberals and the atheists, I wondered which is worse: the pure liberal or the pure atheist.
I'll take the atheist each and every time.
An atheist is going to be consistent where the liberal cannot be. An atheist will voice disdain and contempt for ANY religion... but the modern liberal singles out Christianity because it is the "mainstream"... it is the status quo that must be defeated and changed utterly. Minority faiths like Islam (which will very soon out number Christians globally) and Hinduism are all fine and dandy to a liberal, because they are seen as part of the victims of Christianity, along with gays and lesbians, atheists, secularists, and anyone that has ever been to a Catholic school or parish where a priest held a position of authority.
So... in addition to what I've said before, support the atheist over the liberal, whenever the chance presents itself... they are the lesser of two evils.
In a world where my traditional Judeo-Christian values are under almost constant attack by the liberals and the atheists, I wondered which is worse: the pure liberal or the pure atheist.
I'll take the atheist each and every time.
An atheist is going to be consistent where the liberal cannot be. An atheist will voice disdain and contempt for ANY religion... but the modern liberal singles out Christianity because it is the "mainstream"... it is the status quo that must be defeated and changed utterly. Minority faiths like Islam (which will very soon out number Christians globally) and Hinduism are all fine and dandy to a liberal, because they are seen as part of the victims of Christianity, along with gays and lesbians, atheists, secularists, and anyone that has ever been to a Catholic school or parish where a priest held a position of authority.
So... in addition to what I've said before, support the atheist over the liberal, whenever the chance presents itself... they are the lesser of two evils.
Nice...
I'm delighted at your sarcasm and irony... but I hope it isn't going to take years off your life with worry and stress.
This sort of "progressive" attitude that so much of America is embracing is going to backfire... just as it always has. This isn't the first time that our culture has tried to rewrite itself into something that it isn't, and it won't be the last.
With more than 80% of our nation openly claiming to be Christian, terms like "Christmas" and "Christ" can't be ignored or shunned without pissing off someone between sea and shining sea. These are the same "someones" that voted in the biggest GOP midterm upset in 35 years... and the more that the progressive/liberal left want to push buttons and make what at least 80% of America thinks of as "traditional" look like fascism, then the quicker their voices will be heard again at the polls.
Someone else pointed out something I think we all need to keep in mind:
The number of people that it makes to raise a stink about a problem is very, very small. Once that "problem" is addressed, the number of people to fix it grows. The bigger the problem, the more people it takes to fix it.
Allowing a small, very select few to dictate to us (the majority) what we can, can't or shouldn't do is no one's fault BUT the majority's. If a school district is going to raise a stink about calling a holiday "Christmas" then it is the fault of the vast majority of school district tax payers for allowing a few atheists to force a change in the district. Once that change is made, though... it takes far greater effort (and sometimes expense) to bring things back to where they were in the first place.
This is the very FOUNDATION of such ideologies as those promoted by the likes of Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals, published as long ago as 1972. Force the change, and that which you changed becomes the status quo... making a return to the previous state that much harder and requiring more and greater effort to do so. The natural entropy of a society like ours (and there is no society on earth more entropic than ours) means that what was changed is that much more UNLIKELY to be changed back in the future.
I'm not saying that certain milestones in "bad government" haven't been overturned in the past, or that they can't be fixed in the future. Prohibition is an excellent example, isn't it? I'm saying that the Abstinence Society of America was a 15,000 member group that managed to stop all legal alcohol production, distribution and consumption for 14 years and ended an industry that employed nearly 400,000 people and produced a staggering $200 billion (in 2006 dollars) a year in government tax and excise revenue from production to consumer sales. Had enough of mainstream, moderate America raised its voice prior to the passage of the Volstead Act in 1919... that particularly dark chapter in American history (the "Noble Experiment" indeed... thanks Hoover!) would never have occurred.
So, as much as I enjoy reading your open letters on the Bund... don't simply post on the Bund and hope everyone reads it. Print the letter out and send it to the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial page. Go to a school board meeting the next time there is an item on the public agenda about naming (or renaming) holidays in more PC terms. Better yet, vote for practicing Christians to sit on your board... Vegas must be practically crawling with Mormons anyway, right?
This sort of "progressive" attitude that so much of America is embracing is going to backfire... just as it always has. This isn't the first time that our culture has tried to rewrite itself into something that it isn't, and it won't be the last.
With more than 80% of our nation openly claiming to be Christian, terms like "Christmas" and "Christ" can't be ignored or shunned without pissing off someone between sea and shining sea. These are the same "someones" that voted in the biggest GOP midterm upset in 35 years... and the more that the progressive/liberal left want to push buttons and make what at least 80% of America thinks of as "traditional" look like fascism, then the quicker their voices will be heard again at the polls.
Someone else pointed out something I think we all need to keep in mind:
The number of people that it makes to raise a stink about a problem is very, very small. Once that "problem" is addressed, the number of people to fix it grows. The bigger the problem, the more people it takes to fix it.
Allowing a small, very select few to dictate to us (the majority) what we can, can't or shouldn't do is no one's fault BUT the majority's. If a school district is going to raise a stink about calling a holiday "Christmas" then it is the fault of the vast majority of school district tax payers for allowing a few atheists to force a change in the district. Once that change is made, though... it takes far greater effort (and sometimes expense) to bring things back to where they were in the first place.
This is the very FOUNDATION of such ideologies as those promoted by the likes of Saul Alinsky in his Rules for Radicals, published as long ago as 1972. Force the change, and that which you changed becomes the status quo... making a return to the previous state that much harder and requiring more and greater effort to do so. The natural entropy of a society like ours (and there is no society on earth more entropic than ours) means that what was changed is that much more UNLIKELY to be changed back in the future.
I'm not saying that certain milestones in "bad government" haven't been overturned in the past, or that they can't be fixed in the future. Prohibition is an excellent example, isn't it? I'm saying that the Abstinence Society of America was a 15,000 member group that managed to stop all legal alcohol production, distribution and consumption for 14 years and ended an industry that employed nearly 400,000 people and produced a staggering $200 billion (in 2006 dollars) a year in government tax and excise revenue from production to consumer sales. Had enough of mainstream, moderate America raised its voice prior to the passage of the Volstead Act in 1919... that particularly dark chapter in American history (the "Noble Experiment" indeed... thanks Hoover!) would never have occurred.
So, as much as I enjoy reading your open letters on the Bund... don't simply post on the Bund and hope everyone reads it. Print the letter out and send it to the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial page. Go to a school board meeting the next time there is an item on the public agenda about naming (or renaming) holidays in more PC terms. Better yet, vote for practicing Christians to sit on your board... Vegas must be practically crawling with Mormons anyway, right?
Merry C******** America!
Dear America,
I'm writing to you today in regards to the date in question, December 25th. Apparently some years ago an infant was born, and some subsequent events occurred, and now your government has declared this day a federal holiday. It is the lawful day of celebration across the land. Yet it seems your rebellious nature has once again arisen, stirred to defy your repressive regime's insistence, mandate really, that you become a C******** for 24 hours. Good for you! Don't let them corral you into this peace on earth, good will towards men intolerance ... the beasts. You know better. Fewer times have I been prouder to be an American, or a C********, then in my employee dining room last night. On the table was one of corporate's many, many, "in the know" messages to employees in the form of a small plastic stand on the dining table like one might find listing variations of margaritas at a T*I Fridays. Within it they solicited donations to be placed under the "Holiday Tree." FINALLY! I exclaimed. A tree for all those long offended by my oppressive C******** faith! But my American pride was yet to swell bigger. I was touched at the progression towards human rights displayed when my son's school flashed in big red letters on its' sign this very morning: NO SCHOOL DEC 20-31, WINTER BREAK. As a desert dweller this break from winter couldn't of come at a better time. I intend to do some swimming, sun bathing and perhaps a touch of golf these 11 days, taking full advantage of this return to 90 degrees and clear skies. Well done America! WE will decide when it is and is not winter, not these pesky seasons!
So in closing America, I want to thank you. The oppressive rule of Santa and his cronies will no longer lay waste to these precious days of the Druid. We have taken back the end of December. Reclaimed it from the villains. After all, "Mr." Nick had it coming ... he's running a sweat shop over there.
Never give up the good fight C********'s, we can not rest until every vestige of our faith, and the holiday which celebrates it, is bleached clean from these fruited plains, never to arise again and stain our land with the injustice of love thy neighbor.
Sincerely,
F. Ryan
PS. I've heard some disturbing news that the Jews have a "Holiday Candelabra", and are demonstrating the audacity to call it the "M" word. Undoubtedly we need to dispatch shock troops to the location and immediately squelch this faith based insurgency. G** Bless.
I'm writing to you today in regards to the date in question, December 25th. Apparently some years ago an infant was born, and some subsequent events occurred, and now your government has declared this day a federal holiday. It is the lawful day of celebration across the land. Yet it seems your rebellious nature has once again arisen, stirred to defy your repressive regime's insistence, mandate really, that you become a C******** for 24 hours. Good for you! Don't let them corral you into this peace on earth, good will towards men intolerance ... the beasts. You know better. Fewer times have I been prouder to be an American, or a C********, then in my employee dining room last night. On the table was one of corporate's many, many, "in the know" messages to employees in the form of a small plastic stand on the dining table like one might find listing variations of margaritas at a T*I Fridays. Within it they solicited donations to be placed under the "Holiday Tree." FINALLY! I exclaimed. A tree for all those long offended by my oppressive C******** faith! But my American pride was yet to swell bigger. I was touched at the progression towards human rights displayed when my son's school flashed in big red letters on its' sign this very morning: NO SCHOOL DEC 20-31, WINTER BREAK. As a desert dweller this break from winter couldn't of come at a better time. I intend to do some swimming, sun bathing and perhaps a touch of golf these 11 days, taking full advantage of this return to 90 degrees and clear skies. Well done America! WE will decide when it is and is not winter, not these pesky seasons!
So in closing America, I want to thank you. The oppressive rule of Santa and his cronies will no longer lay waste to these precious days of the Druid. We have taken back the end of December. Reclaimed it from the villains. After all, "Mr." Nick had it coming ... he's running a sweat shop over there.
Never give up the good fight C********'s, we can not rest until every vestige of our faith, and the holiday which celebrates it, is bleached clean from these fruited plains, never to arise again and stain our land with the injustice of love thy neighbor.
Sincerely,
F. Ryan
PS. I've heard some disturbing news that the Jews have a "Holiday Candelabra", and are demonstrating the audacity to call it the "M" word. Undoubtedly we need to dispatch shock troops to the location and immediately squelch this faith based insurgency. G** Bless.
Totally different subject...
... but as long as we are talking about series worth watching, let me mention this:
I'm a horror fan, and I'm especially fond of those "zombie apocolypse" shows like "Night of the Living Dead" at al. I love the real terror you can almost feel when imagining yourself facing hordes of "bad guys" that are as automatic in their actions as a giant virus... and nearly as numerous.
AMC is running a series now called The Walking Dead, and while it is NO WHERE NEAR as good as Pacific (I even hesitate to put their names on the same page), there is an aspect of pure, escapist fun in watching the series. I have it on DVR (the first season was only six episodes) and they are good... if for no other reason than they give you something fun to debate. It is amazing to me that I can lay in bed with Liz and frankly discuss what we should do if the event actually occurred... what do we need first, where do we go, what is the best means of transportation, what kind of weapons do we need, etc. Fun and kind of intellecutally stimulating, if you're looking for something to watch.
I'm a horror fan, and I'm especially fond of those "zombie apocolypse" shows like "Night of the Living Dead" at al. I love the real terror you can almost feel when imagining yourself facing hordes of "bad guys" that are as automatic in their actions as a giant virus... and nearly as numerous.
AMC is running a series now called The Walking Dead, and while it is NO WHERE NEAR as good as Pacific (I even hesitate to put their names on the same page), there is an aspect of pure, escapist fun in watching the series. I have it on DVR (the first season was only six episodes) and they are good... if for no other reason than they give you something fun to debate. It is amazing to me that I can lay in bed with Liz and frankly discuss what we should do if the event actually occurred... what do we need first, where do we go, what is the best means of transportation, what kind of weapons do we need, etc. Fun and kind of intellecutally stimulating, if you're looking for something to watch.
My take...
So, I finished the series (as promised). Pacific is, officially, the second best war movie/series/show I have ever seen, just behind BoB.
I think I see Ryan's point... and I've always understood Jambo's. I'm inclined to think that Ryan is right, and while that doesn't negate Jambo's point... the two are not exclusive.
I'm walking away with the impression that the series was trying to say that the effort made by Snafu and Sledge (especially those two) was less-than-noble in spite of the nature of the men fighting and the horrors they experienced. That such efforts cannot but scar a man to the point of personal struggle typified in the scene where Sledge is dove hunting with his father and breaks down crying. PTSD, as it is understood today, is a very real and scarring condition that cannot but impact the lives of those that undergo the kind of stress these men lived with for months on end... but the effects of that kind of stress and anxiety shouldn't be the impression that viewers like me walk away with after watching the series. We should see, remember and celebrate the courage and self sacrifice of those that undertook such struggles for the purely selfless reasons that men like Snafu and Sledge did, in spite of the dangers that such actions and efforts might entail.
No one can deny (nor would anyone do so here) that the war in the Pacific was a different fight entirely than that of the ETO. The series even acknowledges this when the cab driver drops off Leckie and refuses the fare... because while he dropped into Normandy (part of the 101st, perhaps?) he, at least, took his liberty passes in London and Paris... all the grunts had from '43 on was mud, rain and jungle living. He recognized a special "effort" in what the marines had done in the PTO... and he was a combat veteran of some of the toughest fighting in Europe. I regret any aspect of the production that detracts or even provides the opportunity for distraction from this fact.
I will readily admit that having watched the entire series now, I see that Sledge's "dark night of the soul" was not simply the scene with the gold teeth... it carried on into the scene on Okinawa where he found the dying woman who begged for a bullet to end her misery and he held her gently until she passed... giving lie to the statement he'd made when he said he hoped they (the Japs) wouldn't surrender, so they could simply "kill 'em all". Sledge did not allow his soul to be ripped out, as his father feared... he maintained his humanity throughout. I'm not saying he didn't struggle, but he struggled with the firm understanding that his efforts made a difference and were for a "good cause". I think this is the message that could have been clearer than it was.
All criticism aside, though... this was a great series. I can't express how it moves me to see shows where the brutal nature of war is so plainly (almost off-handedly) presented... one moment you are looking at a woman trying to hand off a baby, and the next you see her (literally SEE HER) explode into a pink cloud because of the booby trap strapped to her chest. THAT brings across the message of PTSD and "shell shock" far better than the sideways messages left in the "knowing" glances and dazed looks of the characters. I also missed the pattern of "bonding" that must have existed between the marines in the show. Yes, they knew each other and shared common experiences... but that was not conveyed the same way (or nearly as well) as it was in BoB. That Sledge and Smith remained friends for decades after the war was NOT something I might have picked up on at all... had it not happened to show it to me in a bio-segment at the end of the last episode. In fact, Snafu and Sledge never seemed to be friends at all until they took the long train ride back from San Diego to their homes in New Orleans and Mobile (and by the way, could they have possibly found a better New Orleans accent than the one they found with the actor portraying Snafu? I don't think so... that kid did a French Quarter accent to perfection).
One more question: I'm not questioning accuracy at all... I'm sure that Sledge had it all right and that the producers and writers did their homework..., but did anyone else notice that the battle on Okinawa, when the civilian women were being hearded down the hill with explosives strapped to their chests as human bombs for the Japs to detonate with rifle shots, was a fight taking place on what the Japanese considered "home turf"? In other words, those women were "Japanese" women... the babies were Japanese babies... and the Imperial Marines that the US Marines were facing were using them as weapons and weapon platforms like they were nothing more than tools. That is tantamount to US troops using American women to carry explosives to the enemy... without their consent (obviously)... to ensure the highest body count possible amongst the enemy. No concern whatsoever for the welfare and safety of noncombatants... just another tool to kill American "GI's".
Intentional or not... I thought that was a telling example of how similar the fights of yester-year are to the fights of today... and how costly the fights of today might become before we can see an eventual end to the conflicts.
So... I'm off to watch it all again.
I think I see Ryan's point... and I've always understood Jambo's. I'm inclined to think that Ryan is right, and while that doesn't negate Jambo's point... the two are not exclusive.
I'm walking away with the impression that the series was trying to say that the effort made by Snafu and Sledge (especially those two) was less-than-noble in spite of the nature of the men fighting and the horrors they experienced. That such efforts cannot but scar a man to the point of personal struggle typified in the scene where Sledge is dove hunting with his father and breaks down crying. PTSD, as it is understood today, is a very real and scarring condition that cannot but impact the lives of those that undergo the kind of stress these men lived with for months on end... but the effects of that kind of stress and anxiety shouldn't be the impression that viewers like me walk away with after watching the series. We should see, remember and celebrate the courage and self sacrifice of those that undertook such struggles for the purely selfless reasons that men like Snafu and Sledge did, in spite of the dangers that such actions and efforts might entail.
No one can deny (nor would anyone do so here) that the war in the Pacific was a different fight entirely than that of the ETO. The series even acknowledges this when the cab driver drops off Leckie and refuses the fare... because while he dropped into Normandy (part of the 101st, perhaps?) he, at least, took his liberty passes in London and Paris... all the grunts had from '43 on was mud, rain and jungle living. He recognized a special "effort" in what the marines had done in the PTO... and he was a combat veteran of some of the toughest fighting in Europe. I regret any aspect of the production that detracts or even provides the opportunity for distraction from this fact.
I will readily admit that having watched the entire series now, I see that Sledge's "dark night of the soul" was not simply the scene with the gold teeth... it carried on into the scene on Okinawa where he found the dying woman who begged for a bullet to end her misery and he held her gently until she passed... giving lie to the statement he'd made when he said he hoped they (the Japs) wouldn't surrender, so they could simply "kill 'em all". Sledge did not allow his soul to be ripped out, as his father feared... he maintained his humanity throughout. I'm not saying he didn't struggle, but he struggled with the firm understanding that his efforts made a difference and were for a "good cause". I think this is the message that could have been clearer than it was.
All criticism aside, though... this was a great series. I can't express how it moves me to see shows where the brutal nature of war is so plainly (almost off-handedly) presented... one moment you are looking at a woman trying to hand off a baby, and the next you see her (literally SEE HER) explode into a pink cloud because of the booby trap strapped to her chest. THAT brings across the message of PTSD and "shell shock" far better than the sideways messages left in the "knowing" glances and dazed looks of the characters. I also missed the pattern of "bonding" that must have existed between the marines in the show. Yes, they knew each other and shared common experiences... but that was not conveyed the same way (or nearly as well) as it was in BoB. That Sledge and Smith remained friends for decades after the war was NOT something I might have picked up on at all... had it not happened to show it to me in a bio-segment at the end of the last episode. In fact, Snafu and Sledge never seemed to be friends at all until they took the long train ride back from San Diego to their homes in New Orleans and Mobile (and by the way, could they have possibly found a better New Orleans accent than the one they found with the actor portraying Snafu? I don't think so... that kid did a French Quarter accent to perfection).
One more question: I'm not questioning accuracy at all... I'm sure that Sledge had it all right and that the producers and writers did their homework..., but did anyone else notice that the battle on Okinawa, when the civilian women were being hearded down the hill with explosives strapped to their chests as human bombs for the Japs to detonate with rifle shots, was a fight taking place on what the Japanese considered "home turf"? In other words, those women were "Japanese" women... the babies were Japanese babies... and the Imperial Marines that the US Marines were facing were using them as weapons and weapon platforms like they were nothing more than tools. That is tantamount to US troops using American women to carry explosives to the enemy... without their consent (obviously)... to ensure the highest body count possible amongst the enemy. No concern whatsoever for the welfare and safety of noncombatants... just another tool to kill American "GI's".
Intentional or not... I thought that was a telling example of how similar the fights of yester-year are to the fights of today... and how costly the fights of today might become before we can see an eventual end to the conflicts.
So... I'm off to watch it all again.
Ok, ok, fair enough ...
... but ask yourself a question - to the man every one of the surviving combat veterans demurred, deflected, even recoiled at the idea that they were heroes, inboth series. They reserved that distinction for the men killed, buried, and sacrificed in the dirt, sand and mud of the battlefields they fought in. Would THOSE guys, the warrior survivors, whom refused to talk about their experiences for decades, want this (or any) series to serve as a memorial to their own (or any surviving warrior's) post war psychological state, or to the combat deaths of their dear friends and comrades, whose sacrifice can only be properly presented through front line action sequences?
Perhaps more succinctly put, we, you and I, stand in absolute awe, dumbfounded at what the psychological burdens were that these men had to carry. But I almost feel like Sledge, Leckie, et al would rather we focus the story on the events surrounding those who didn't come back and the in-action combat of all those concerned ... and that involves front line story telling.
I guess what I'm saying is, if Sledge were alive to produce the miniseries, would he want us to delve into his inner psychic, or make a war movie properly glorifying/acknowledging the actions of those who didn't make it?
Jambo ... what would be the preference of the surviving Vets? To focus a renowned series on the survivor's personal post war stress, or their personal friend's sacrifice? I'm just saying ... the choice to focus on PTSD was that of Hanks & Spielberg, they say as much in the "making of" on disc 6. I just don't know of that'd be the preference of Sledgehammer, Leckie, Snafu ...
I'm more then willing to buy, watch, and talk about any series entitled "The PTSD and Background Information of WWII Marines." I just expected something different from a series entitled "The Pacific."
Perhaps more succinctly put, we, you and I, stand in absolute awe, dumbfounded at what the psychological burdens were that these men had to carry. But I almost feel like Sledge, Leckie, et al would rather we focus the story on the events surrounding those who didn't come back and the in-action combat of all those concerned ... and that involves front line story telling.
I guess what I'm saying is, if Sledge were alive to produce the miniseries, would he want us to delve into his inner psychic, or make a war movie properly glorifying/acknowledging the actions of those who didn't make it?
Jambo ... what would be the preference of the surviving Vets? To focus a renowned series on the survivor's personal post war stress, or their personal friend's sacrifice? I'm just saying ... the choice to focus on PTSD was that of Hanks & Spielberg, they say as much in the "making of" on disc 6. I just don't know of that'd be the preference of Sledgehammer, Leckie, Snafu ...
I'm more then willing to buy, watch, and talk about any series entitled "The PTSD and Background Information of WWII Marines." I just expected something different from a series entitled "The Pacific."
You know one of my favorite things about B.O.B?
The Malarkey interview on the last disk, "We Stand Alone Together."
In it, Malark is talking to the interviewer, (the real Malark, not the actor) about the shelling the Company took in the woods above Foy. During the shelling, two of his best friends were killed, two more gravely wounded, and his platoon commander sent to the rear. Malark looked at the interviewer and said "I handled it well, was one of the ones that handled it well in the field, but I suffered... Greatly... In later life." At the end of his quote his lip trembles and his eyes fill. And here's an old man, a hero, reduced to tears over post trauma that happened over 60 years ago. (at the time of the interview.)
I seriously don't think there's ENOUGH of the combat fatigue, in EITHER series. The episode showing Lecke before Peleliu, where he has to go to the hospital and runs into the kids from New Glouster (sp?) I DO NOT consider a wasted episode. The parts of the Okinawa campaign, where Sledge investigates the house he had shelled the day before, that's NOT wasted. These are REAL aspects of combat that deserve the light of day.
Imagine a remake of "To Hell and Back" that deals with post trauma. Imagine "The Big Red One" with accurate post trauma indicators. Imagine "Patton" as he slaps the soldiers. As much eye candy as the combat, front line scenes are, and as much as every one of us LOVES the camaraderie of the platoon, units, companies within these stories, that camaraderie and that esprit d'corps comes at a cost.
I don't consider it a liability at all, I consider it one of the series' greatest strengths.
In it, Malark is talking to the interviewer, (the real Malark, not the actor) about the shelling the Company took in the woods above Foy. During the shelling, two of his best friends were killed, two more gravely wounded, and his platoon commander sent to the rear. Malark looked at the interviewer and said "I handled it well, was one of the ones that handled it well in the field, but I suffered... Greatly... In later life." At the end of his quote his lip trembles and his eyes fill. And here's an old man, a hero, reduced to tears over post trauma that happened over 60 years ago. (at the time of the interview.)
I seriously don't think there's ENOUGH of the combat fatigue, in EITHER series. The episode showing Lecke before Peleliu, where he has to go to the hospital and runs into the kids from New Glouster (sp?) I DO NOT consider a wasted episode. The parts of the Okinawa campaign, where Sledge investigates the house he had shelled the day before, that's NOT wasted. These are REAL aspects of combat that deserve the light of day.
Imagine a remake of "To Hell and Back" that deals with post trauma. Imagine "The Big Red One" with accurate post trauma indicators. Imagine "Patton" as he slaps the soldiers. As much eye candy as the combat, front line scenes are, and as much as every one of us LOVES the camaraderie of the platoon, units, companies within these stories, that camaraderie and that esprit d'corps comes at a cost.
I don't consider it a liability at all, I consider it one of the series' greatest strengths.
Off the top of my head ...
I saw a clip of George Clooney (who is no conservative) on Bill Maher's show. Maher was defining to Clooney what he thought was the difference between "conservatives" and "liberals." "Conservatives" Maher said, "just cant feel any empathy towards anyone unlike themselves. Whereas liberals can and do." The crowd, being Maher's typical crowd, applauded & cheered wildly. But Clooney interrupted the applause, and Maher, and rendered the entire set quiet for multiple seconds with, "Ok, you can say that, but the majority of our help and donations on Sudan this year, came from conservative people."
Clooney's buddy, the actor Don Cheadle (who did a fantastic movie titled "Hotel Rowanda"), runs a huge Sudan charity group. They have an annual celebrity charity poker tournament here in town. I can only assume that multiple donations came in whose names' Clooney readily recognized as "conservative."
Perhaps "conservatives" are more apt to get involved, donate & participate without needing their name on the marquee; but at the very least, Cheadle's outfit is intellectually consistent enough to admit where they get their suport, and that bodes well for the legitimacy of their charity.
Clooney's buddy, the actor Don Cheadle (who did a fantastic movie titled "Hotel Rowanda"), runs a huge Sudan charity group. They have an annual celebrity charity poker tournament here in town. I can only assume that multiple donations came in whose names' Clooney readily recognized as "conservative."
Perhaps "conservatives" are more apt to get involved, donate & participate without needing their name on the marquee; but at the very least, Cheadle's outfit is intellectually consistent enough to admit where they get their suport, and that bodes well for the legitimacy of their charity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
