Yep... deep in the heart of Amish country, I'm posting to the Bund. On vacation with the family in a beautiful part of the country, seeing the rolling farmland and (literally) countless barns, wagons, covered bridges and vegetable stands. We've been to Hershey Park (exhausting but fun), a huge Amish buffet, the Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire (doubly exhausting, unbelievably fun... and crushingly expensive) and we've found at least one REALLY good winery (six bottles down). Today we're going into Lancaster and visiting the famous Central Market... charcuterie, baked goods, produce, crafts, wine and beer... what more could a family need?
Liz might not want to leave here...
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
Roughing it... Gangnam-style, and other observations
My son Jacob and I went "camping" last night. We set up the tent in the backyard, piled in a bunch of blankets and pillows, lit a fire, roasted some marshmallows, looked at the stars, then went to bed. We weren't roughing it by any stretch of the imagination, of course... he brought a laptop for a "scary movie" and I brought my phone and my Kindle. The battery crapped out in our camp light, so we "plugged in" a lamp from the house with the extension cord for the pool. It was a good time... a few hiccups but nothing big enough to get in our way.
Now, sitting here having coffee as the sun burns off the morning fog and the fire is just getting stirred back to life, I'm compelled to write about just how freaking cold it got last night!!!!
It is July 25th! We are in the middle of summer, literally... yet the temperature dropped to 47 degrees last night! Even now... at 7:20am, it is only 50! I'm no longer the "jackpine savage" that I was in my youth, but I have enough experience with camping to know that you should expect the dew to fall and collect on the tent walls if your fly isn't all the way to the ground. I know that fog can make things damp and sticky... but that wasn't the problem, either. It was the cold.
I'm sorry, people... I don't recall 50 degree is July, even from my youth on the shores of Lake Superior! It is beautifully clear and bright, now that the fog is burned off... and with breakfast under our belts (bacon, muffins, eggs, and pancakes) it is still only 55!
Perhaps the Holocene really is ending? Are the ice sheets going to march across continents?
I'd have sworn to it last night!
Now, sitting here having coffee as the sun burns off the morning fog and the fire is just getting stirred back to life, I'm compelled to write about just how freaking cold it got last night!!!!
It is July 25th! We are in the middle of summer, literally... yet the temperature dropped to 47 degrees last night! Even now... at 7:20am, it is only 50! I'm no longer the "jackpine savage" that I was in my youth, but I have enough experience with camping to know that you should expect the dew to fall and collect on the tent walls if your fly isn't all the way to the ground. I know that fog can make things damp and sticky... but that wasn't the problem, either. It was the cold.
I'm sorry, people... I don't recall 50 degree is July, even from my youth on the shores of Lake Superior! It is beautifully clear and bright, now that the fog is burned off... and with breakfast under our belts (bacon, muffins, eggs, and pancakes) it is still only 55!
Perhaps the Holocene really is ending? Are the ice sheets going to march across continents?
I'd have sworn to it last night!
Friday, July 11, 2014
I don't love Tom Brady...
... but I get your point. I love his shows. Carlin, I mean... NOT Brady.
The long and short of this is simply put by saying that you (and I and all of the rest of America) are used to the mainstream manner in which opposing points of view are presented: Two people slugging it out in a 3 minute sound byte but accomplishing nothing and resorting to personal slights and slanders, OR two (or more) people in complete rapturous agreement bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with them. Even "alternative" news and commentary (i.e. Beck, or Wilkow, or Savage, or Mike Church) have stopped being objective and started presenting selected information to make their points, rather than to inform a broader public.
Carlin (and other podcasters... there are hundreds) follow a more old-school approach to political/historical commentary. Carlin's is the best, though... he poses a question, then finds a possible answer and expects YOU, the listener, to come to your own conclusions. He doesn't say his solutions/answers are the ONLY ones, or even the best ones... he simply presents as "devil's advocate" and starts the discussion. You don't have to buy his facts (although I have checked and checked, and his sources are solid)... but he can't be dismissed without counter facts, and if you can't find those... then you can't be right, right?
I do recall the episode where he spoke of a MAD deterrent for every state if every state had a nuke. It wasn't his contention that his idea was the only idea, or even the best idea... he said that at least twice. He was positing the proposition to change the perspective that has been the norm since 1948... that the nuclear club was CLOSED and everyone worried about being attacked by nukes had only to associate in one way or another with one of the two (later three) developing "umbrellas" of protection that the superpowers provided.
More to the point, I think the general question was "Is NATO valid now that the USSR is no longer a threat to regional and global peace?" Specifically, he was asking if the US public would support the expense of lives, treasure and prestige if Russia "invaded" a NATO member in the way that they sent troops into the Ukraine. I know Ukraine isn't a NATO ally... but it very nearly was. And Latvia is. As is Poland. If the time would ever come when Russia does (and we did nothing to stop them in the Crimea, or Georgia, or Chechnya, or Moldavia...), would we be willing to send the same weight of effort to defend them that we would have to save Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact invasion in 1985? I don't think we would have.
So perhaps your point is valid... Russia hasn't attacked a NATO ally, and possibly that is because they are NATO allies. NATO has not shown a "unified front" in every situation that has arisen since 1999, though... does that factor into your defense of the alliance? At least two did not endorse the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Two did not support (or allow their airspace to be utilized) when Reagan bombed Tripoli, either... and that was at the height of the Cold War, and in clear violation of treaty grounds. We were attacked in 2001... no one disputes that... yet only four nations in NATO vowed military support for operations in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2001. The rest simply said "good luck". Is the possibility that the US would be the ONLY nation defending Poland or Latvia if Russia moved in acceptable to you? Does it still validate the existence of the organization?
Again, I'm not saying he's right... or that he is wrong. I am simply saying that the fact he has gotten us talking about the question at all is a very good thing.
The long and short of this is simply put by saying that you (and I and all of the rest of America) are used to the mainstream manner in which opposing points of view are presented: Two people slugging it out in a 3 minute sound byte but accomplishing nothing and resorting to personal slights and slanders, OR two (or more) people in complete rapturous agreement bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with them. Even "alternative" news and commentary (i.e. Beck, or Wilkow, or Savage, or Mike Church) have stopped being objective and started presenting selected information to make their points, rather than to inform a broader public.
Carlin (and other podcasters... there are hundreds) follow a more old-school approach to political/historical commentary. Carlin's is the best, though... he poses a question, then finds a possible answer and expects YOU, the listener, to come to your own conclusions. He doesn't say his solutions/answers are the ONLY ones, or even the best ones... he simply presents as "devil's advocate" and starts the discussion. You don't have to buy his facts (although I have checked and checked, and his sources are solid)... but he can't be dismissed without counter facts, and if you can't find those... then you can't be right, right?
I do recall the episode where he spoke of a MAD deterrent for every state if every state had a nuke. It wasn't his contention that his idea was the only idea, or even the best idea... he said that at least twice. He was positing the proposition to change the perspective that has been the norm since 1948... that the nuclear club was CLOSED and everyone worried about being attacked by nukes had only to associate in one way or another with one of the two (later three) developing "umbrellas" of protection that the superpowers provided.
More to the point, I think the general question was "Is NATO valid now that the USSR is no longer a threat to regional and global peace?" Specifically, he was asking if the US public would support the expense of lives, treasure and prestige if Russia "invaded" a NATO member in the way that they sent troops into the Ukraine. I know Ukraine isn't a NATO ally... but it very nearly was. And Latvia is. As is Poland. If the time would ever come when Russia does (and we did nothing to stop them in the Crimea, or Georgia, or Chechnya, or Moldavia...), would we be willing to send the same weight of effort to defend them that we would have to save Western Europe from a Warsaw Pact invasion in 1985? I don't think we would have.
So perhaps your point is valid... Russia hasn't attacked a NATO ally, and possibly that is because they are NATO allies. NATO has not shown a "unified front" in every situation that has arisen since 1999, though... does that factor into your defense of the alliance? At least two did not endorse the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Two did not support (or allow their airspace to be utilized) when Reagan bombed Tripoli, either... and that was at the height of the Cold War, and in clear violation of treaty grounds. We were attacked in 2001... no one disputes that... yet only four nations in NATO vowed military support for operations in Afghanistan prior to the invasion in 2001. The rest simply said "good luck". Is the possibility that the US would be the ONLY nation defending Poland or Latvia if Russia moved in acceptable to you? Does it still validate the existence of the organization?
Again, I'm not saying he's right... or that he is wrong. I am simply saying that the fact he has gotten us talking about the question at all is a very good thing.
You "love" Dan Carlin?
Really?
As my New England Patriots loving son would tell you, the only time it's okay for one man to tell another man he loves him is when one of those men is Tom Brady.
Look, I know you're about one burrito away from seeing Carlin's image in a tortilla, but there are some serious flaws within the two Common Sense podcasts I've listened to thus far. Now don't fret, I am not at all commenting on Hardcore History, as I haven't listened to them yet, but respecting your standards for accuracy and detail for history as I do, I'm optimistic about that series.
Neither am I retracting my previous statements that I love the way he first frames every issue within their historical context. My problem is the conclusions he draws after that framework of historical context is set up. His "solutions" leave much to be desired in my estimation. In his defense he does often say that he's not saying point A or B is right or wrong, just that we should be asking ourselves these questions. But when he does make a finite statement I find we are in wild disagreement. I'll address the two to which I am referring.
1) Episode: Riding the Chaos to Stasis (the Mid East problem/solution podcast you recommended):
He takes two contrary points without realizing it, or at least without acknowledging it. First of all, neither I nor he said the large Pan-Arab State (or caliphate) was good for us because we could defeat that state militarily (although we could). What he and I said was we have a better track record out maneuvering, manipulating, or in his words "using a carrot and stick" to illicit preferable behavior from nation states, unlike our experience in quelling insurgents. But to my point - he made it very clear that "of course you end up with a Saddam using Stalinist tactics" in Iraq because the cobbling together of three very distinct vying groups into one nation post WWI was a mistake. He went on to say that an iron fist naturally follows such a cobbling because it's the only style of governance that could maintain peace and order in a country made up of so many distinct, vying factions.
He then goes on to say (which you echoed in your post) that a massive Pan-Arab state (or quasi caliphate) would be good for the US because (among other things) when you have so many different, vying factions being ruled by a single government that the government would have to moderate its' positions in order to maintain peace and order.
Wait, what?
I thought cobbling together groups that are have religious, ethnic and clan based differences required an iron fist to rule? And what's worse is he thinks that a US lead conference that sets this in motion could peacefully expedite what would otherwise occur in war. Isn't that sorta what the UK and France did after WWI that he so (rightfully) decries as unworkable?
My problem with his avocation is this episode is that on the one hand he's saying it's destructive to maintain the Iraqi borders as one single nation because with so many varying sects you either get a strong man or perpetual civil war, when on the other hand he says consolidating the various sects under one uber government's rule would result in moderate leadership and a chance for peace. I don't see how these two views can be held simultaneously.
2) Cashing The Doomsday Cheque:
This is a Common Sense episode I'm assuming you listened to, but if you didn't you should because it's right in your wheel house - Russia.
He flat our advocates that NATO should have been dissolved immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union.
I'm sorry.... WHAT? His reasoning is that "of course Russia feels threatened" because we keep slinging out NATO memberships in their neighborhood like a pitch dealer on a $3 snapper game. The problem here is two fold. One, Vladamir Putin's grand designs of a reemerging Russian Bear, if not Russian Empire, DO exist in a vacuum. They would not have been abated by a non existent NATO. Second, it is clear that a NATO membership is the only thing preventing you from getting invaded by the Federation. The Chechs, Ukranians and Georgians are not NATO members. Poland is. See any difference in the status of Russian troops within those three?
Carlin further points out that Americans won't initiate a WWIII over some nation they've never heard of like Latvia. Look, that may be true if you do a man on the street Q&A. However, it is clear that NATO is the line in the sand Vlad will not yet cross. I don't know if the Kremlin has a ball room, but they will build one to house the party that will be thrown if NATO suddenly dissolves. Oh, the Vodka will flow boys! Can you imagine the free reign to "annex" former satellite states Russia would feel if such a thing occurred?
And all of that is not half as bad as what he says - and he was being serious - he would replace NATO with, the "Carlin Solution" as he calls it. In a nut shell, post dissolution of NATO, he would give each of the former members (presumably we're talking about Eastern European nations) a nuke. This is so they would have the means to deter Russia - and their 2000 nukes - themselves. Uh huh, sure, that oughta do it. He then amended that to say that he would give them one nuke for every two nations and they'd have to both "turn the key" so to speak to use it, like some sort of nuke buddy system. Oh ya, that sounds workable. Everybody gets .5 nukes and Russia will stay home, everybody can relax now.
As an aside he thinks this is also the solution to world wide nonproliferation - every, and I mean EVERY nation (or every two) gets the bomb says he, including Iran because (he claims) our efforts at non proliferation among bad state actors has failed. Excuse me, no it hasn't. Nations that we don't want to have the bomb almost never get them. North Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and if you're screaming "Iran", believe me when I say Israel will never let that happen.
Back to my point - if you think that doling out NATO memberships has in essence provoked the "bear" to the point of an aggressive foreign policy, what do you think doling out nukes would do? Putin would go ballistic, maybe literally. The Ruskies flipped out when we wanted conventional missiles in Poland (which Bush advocated and Obama bailed on). Vlad might literally consider handing the Chechs a nuke, an act of war. And Carlin unequivocally advocated doing just that.
If it weren't so dangerous it would be silly.
Again, I do think he does an impressive job (better than any other pundit) of setting up the current event or geopolitical issue in a historical context prior to delving into "solutions." I like that contextual set up. It's detailed and serious, very solid work. But the solutions that then spring from that set up are thus far lacking, well.... common sense.
As my New England Patriots loving son would tell you, the only time it's okay for one man to tell another man he loves him is when one of those men is Tom Brady.
Look, I know you're about one burrito away from seeing Carlin's image in a tortilla, but there are some serious flaws within the two Common Sense podcasts I've listened to thus far. Now don't fret, I am not at all commenting on Hardcore History, as I haven't listened to them yet, but respecting your standards for accuracy and detail for history as I do, I'm optimistic about that series.
Neither am I retracting my previous statements that I love the way he first frames every issue within their historical context. My problem is the conclusions he draws after that framework of historical context is set up. His "solutions" leave much to be desired in my estimation. In his defense he does often say that he's not saying point A or B is right or wrong, just that we should be asking ourselves these questions. But when he does make a finite statement I find we are in wild disagreement. I'll address the two to which I am referring.
1) Episode: Riding the Chaos to Stasis (the Mid East problem/solution podcast you recommended):
He takes two contrary points without realizing it, or at least without acknowledging it. First of all, neither I nor he said the large Pan-Arab State (or caliphate) was good for us because we could defeat that state militarily (although we could). What he and I said was we have a better track record out maneuvering, manipulating, or in his words "using a carrot and stick" to illicit preferable behavior from nation states, unlike our experience in quelling insurgents. But to my point - he made it very clear that "of course you end up with a Saddam using Stalinist tactics" in Iraq because the cobbling together of three very distinct vying groups into one nation post WWI was a mistake. He went on to say that an iron fist naturally follows such a cobbling because it's the only style of governance that could maintain peace and order in a country made up of so many distinct, vying factions.
He then goes on to say (which you echoed in your post) that a massive Pan-Arab state (or quasi caliphate) would be good for the US because (among other things) when you have so many different, vying factions being ruled by a single government that the government would have to moderate its' positions in order to maintain peace and order.
Wait, what?
I thought cobbling together groups that are have religious, ethnic and clan based differences required an iron fist to rule? And what's worse is he thinks that a US lead conference that sets this in motion could peacefully expedite what would otherwise occur in war. Isn't that sorta what the UK and France did after WWI that he so (rightfully) decries as unworkable?
My problem with his avocation is this episode is that on the one hand he's saying it's destructive to maintain the Iraqi borders as one single nation because with so many varying sects you either get a strong man or perpetual civil war, when on the other hand he says consolidating the various sects under one uber government's rule would result in moderate leadership and a chance for peace. I don't see how these two views can be held simultaneously.
2) Cashing The Doomsday Cheque:
This is a Common Sense episode I'm assuming you listened to, but if you didn't you should because it's right in your wheel house - Russia.
He flat our advocates that NATO should have been dissolved immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union.
I'm sorry.... WHAT? His reasoning is that "of course Russia feels threatened" because we keep slinging out NATO memberships in their neighborhood like a pitch dealer on a $3 snapper game. The problem here is two fold. One, Vladamir Putin's grand designs of a reemerging Russian Bear, if not Russian Empire, DO exist in a vacuum. They would not have been abated by a non existent NATO. Second, it is clear that a NATO membership is the only thing preventing you from getting invaded by the Federation. The Chechs, Ukranians and Georgians are not NATO members. Poland is. See any difference in the status of Russian troops within those three?
Carlin further points out that Americans won't initiate a WWIII over some nation they've never heard of like Latvia. Look, that may be true if you do a man on the street Q&A. However, it is clear that NATO is the line in the sand Vlad will not yet cross. I don't know if the Kremlin has a ball room, but they will build one to house the party that will be thrown if NATO suddenly dissolves. Oh, the Vodka will flow boys! Can you imagine the free reign to "annex" former satellite states Russia would feel if such a thing occurred?
And all of that is not half as bad as what he says - and he was being serious - he would replace NATO with, the "Carlin Solution" as he calls it. In a nut shell, post dissolution of NATO, he would give each of the former members (presumably we're talking about Eastern European nations) a nuke. This is so they would have the means to deter Russia - and their 2000 nukes - themselves. Uh huh, sure, that oughta do it. He then amended that to say that he would give them one nuke for every two nations and they'd have to both "turn the key" so to speak to use it, like some sort of nuke buddy system. Oh ya, that sounds workable. Everybody gets .5 nukes and Russia will stay home, everybody can relax now.
As an aside he thinks this is also the solution to world wide nonproliferation - every, and I mean EVERY nation (or every two) gets the bomb says he, including Iran because (he claims) our efforts at non proliferation among bad state actors has failed. Excuse me, no it hasn't. Nations that we don't want to have the bomb almost never get them. North Korea is the exception that proves the rule, and if you're screaming "Iran", believe me when I say Israel will never let that happen.
Back to my point - if you think that doling out NATO memberships has in essence provoked the "bear" to the point of an aggressive foreign policy, what do you think doling out nukes would do? Putin would go ballistic, maybe literally. The Ruskies flipped out when we wanted conventional missiles in Poland (which Bush advocated and Obama bailed on). Vlad might literally consider handing the Chechs a nuke, an act of war. And Carlin unequivocally advocated doing just that.
If it weren't so dangerous it would be silly.
Again, I do think he does an impressive job (better than any other pundit) of setting up the current event or geopolitical issue in a historical context prior to delving into "solutions." I like that contextual set up. It's detailed and serious, very solid work. But the solutions that then spring from that set up are thus far lacking, well.... common sense.
On NATO...
I got a text from F Ryan saying he was not happy with the direction Mr. Carlin was going in a discussion on NATO. I'd like to hear more on this.
If I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be), there was a Common Sense episode where he discussed the crisis in the Ukraine earlier this year. Russia "invades" the Crimea, Kiev is in meltdown mode, protesters are being shot in the streets... it was very dramatic and painful to watch. Carlin's comments were that Ukraine was... literally... about six months from joining NATO. It wasn't until an election scandal derailed the process that the membership in NATO fell through. He was asking: What if Ukraine was a NATO member?
Would the US have committed troops and arms to the effort as its NATO membership required? To treat the attack on the Crimea as an attack on the US itself? Would it have been right to do so? Is there a purpose to expanding NATO now that the Soviet Union is gone? Russia is not the USSR, but it is still a major global power and still maintains a "sphere of influence" every bit as vital to herself as ours is to us. Most of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO (at least the biggest are), as are several of the former Soviet republics... but to what end? If Russia's next "grab" is for one or more of the Baltic states... will we commit 100% of our military and fiscal power to stop them? Will any other NATO member? If the answer is "No" then what is the purpose of the alliance? What is the reason to expand if adherence to the treaty isn't a priority?
More importantly, would the American people support such measures? Would they willingly support troops in places like Poland, Ukraine, Latvia or Slovakia? If the answer, again, is "No" then what good is NATO?
If I'm not mistaken (and I may very well be), there was a Common Sense episode where he discussed the crisis in the Ukraine earlier this year. Russia "invades" the Crimea, Kiev is in meltdown mode, protesters are being shot in the streets... it was very dramatic and painful to watch. Carlin's comments were that Ukraine was... literally... about six months from joining NATO. It wasn't until an election scandal derailed the process that the membership in NATO fell through. He was asking: What if Ukraine was a NATO member?
Would the US have committed troops and arms to the effort as its NATO membership required? To treat the attack on the Crimea as an attack on the US itself? Would it have been right to do so? Is there a purpose to expanding NATO now that the Soviet Union is gone? Russia is not the USSR, but it is still a major global power and still maintains a "sphere of influence" every bit as vital to herself as ours is to us. Most of the former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO (at least the biggest are), as are several of the former Soviet republics... but to what end? If Russia's next "grab" is for one or more of the Baltic states... will we commit 100% of our military and fiscal power to stop them? Will any other NATO member? If the answer is "No" then what is the purpose of the alliance? What is the reason to expand if adherence to the treaty isn't a priority?
More importantly, would the American people support such measures? Would they willingly support troops in places like Poland, Ukraine, Latvia or Slovakia? If the answer, again, is "No" then what good is NATO?
Thursday, July 10, 2014
I love Dan Carlin...
... and I'm damn glad you finally listened to him. Both formats are fantastic, but it is Hardcore History that has stolen my time completely. I will listen to his shows over and over again... seriously.
That said, I'm concerned that you and I listened to the same podcast... but came to completely different conclusions about what he was saying.
Why would a solution that presented the least problem for us to overcome militarily be the one you would advocate in regards to the crisis in Iraq and Syria?
His half-hearted endorsement of a modern "caliphate" was not because it was something we, as a superpower, are good at winning wars against. It was to show that one cannot govern THAT many people of THAT many varied ethnic and denominational differences and NOT be far, far more moderate than the extremists we are so afraid of now. Saddam would still be in power now, crushing the life out of 25 million Iraqis with nary a word of rebuke from the US, if he hadn't overplayed his hand and invaded a sovereign neighbor... Kuwait. Iran is still a thorn in the side of the US because they haven't overtly done anything to tip the scales against them in the ponderous but fluid game of international diplomacy.
One cannot successfully govern Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Berber, Arab, Afghan, Turk, Somali and Pakistani without a degree of moderation and even-handedness that simply doesn't exist today... but it has existed in the past. His point, as far as I can tell, was that with a caliphate-like structure, there would be a central authority that simply doesn't exist now... and hasn't since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
More importantly, as you hear more of his podcasts, I think you will see that Mr. Carlin is a big fan of allowing people like the Iraqis (or anyone else we are desperately trying to manipulate) the freedom to determine their own form of government... something we should be behind 100%, regardless of what that form takes. This harkens back to the debate we had when Lebanon finally had "free" elections and elevated Hamas to the heights of power. You were outraged... incensed, even. Yet it was exactly what we had hoped they would do: elect a government that best represents their interests. I don't like Hamas any more than you do... but that is the price of the democratic process, isn't it? Hitler was elected, after all.
Putting aside the question of a caliphate, though...
The three-state solution could work. Worrying about ISIS overtaking the entire middle east seems a bit much. They have overrun most of northern Iraq and eastern Syria only because the Shi'ite minority of the area has chosen NOT to fight with any real effort. That is the reason we hear reports of 800 "terrorists" routing 12,000 US-trained Iraqi infantry. The ISIS groups have nearly full logistical support from the Sunni populous, but are risking intervention from Iran (if it hasn't come already) AND Hamas. They are living large on the reputation that the videos and pictures of street murders and mass killings provide them... but even a small bit of actual supported resistance could curb their gains very quickly.
There will come a time when the politics of the few will cost the majority so much in blood, fear and hunger that the support (voluntary or otherwise) will end, and you will see the REAL fruits of an Arab Spring. ISIS can instill fear and terror, as they have so clearly demonstrated. I am 100% confident that they will be even more incapable of actual rule than the Taliban, or the PLO, or Hamas.
Therein lies the problem, though, doesn't it? I am sure that F Ryan is NOT ready to wait for ISIS to fail any more than he was the Taliban, the PLO or Hamas. As you said, should an attack from Iraq (in any of its future forms) be made on America, then we respond with overwhelming force and total victory. Not before though... preemptive actions and operations do not allow for a clear strategic grand strategy, but defensive or retaliatory actions and operations do. That is the ingredient that we were missing since long before 2001... in fact, all the way back to the end of the First Gulf War.
Finally, now that you have discovered the wonder that is Dan Carlin... you simply MUST listen to the Wrath of the Khans. It is a four-part (I think) series that I have listened to at least four times. Utterly fascinating, and delivered in a manner that even my children have enjoyed... and that is saying something.
That said, I'm concerned that you and I listened to the same podcast... but came to completely different conclusions about what he was saying.
Why would a solution that presented the least problem for us to overcome militarily be the one you would advocate in regards to the crisis in Iraq and Syria?
His half-hearted endorsement of a modern "caliphate" was not because it was something we, as a superpower, are good at winning wars against. It was to show that one cannot govern THAT many people of THAT many varied ethnic and denominational differences and NOT be far, far more moderate than the extremists we are so afraid of now. Saddam would still be in power now, crushing the life out of 25 million Iraqis with nary a word of rebuke from the US, if he hadn't overplayed his hand and invaded a sovereign neighbor... Kuwait. Iran is still a thorn in the side of the US because they haven't overtly done anything to tip the scales against them in the ponderous but fluid game of international diplomacy.
One cannot successfully govern Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Berber, Arab, Afghan, Turk, Somali and Pakistani without a degree of moderation and even-handedness that simply doesn't exist today... but it has existed in the past. His point, as far as I can tell, was that with a caliphate-like structure, there would be a central authority that simply doesn't exist now... and hasn't since the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
More importantly, as you hear more of his podcasts, I think you will see that Mr. Carlin is a big fan of allowing people like the Iraqis (or anyone else we are desperately trying to manipulate) the freedom to determine their own form of government... something we should be behind 100%, regardless of what that form takes. This harkens back to the debate we had when Lebanon finally had "free" elections and elevated Hamas to the heights of power. You were outraged... incensed, even. Yet it was exactly what we had hoped they would do: elect a government that best represents their interests. I don't like Hamas any more than you do... but that is the price of the democratic process, isn't it? Hitler was elected, after all.
Putting aside the question of a caliphate, though...
The three-state solution could work. Worrying about ISIS overtaking the entire middle east seems a bit much. They have overrun most of northern Iraq and eastern Syria only because the Shi'ite minority of the area has chosen NOT to fight with any real effort. That is the reason we hear reports of 800 "terrorists" routing 12,000 US-trained Iraqi infantry. The ISIS groups have nearly full logistical support from the Sunni populous, but are risking intervention from Iran (if it hasn't come already) AND Hamas. They are living large on the reputation that the videos and pictures of street murders and mass killings provide them... but even a small bit of actual supported resistance could curb their gains very quickly.
There will come a time when the politics of the few will cost the majority so much in blood, fear and hunger that the support (voluntary or otherwise) will end, and you will see the REAL fruits of an Arab Spring. ISIS can instill fear and terror, as they have so clearly demonstrated. I am 100% confident that they will be even more incapable of actual rule than the Taliban, or the PLO, or Hamas.
Therein lies the problem, though, doesn't it? I am sure that F Ryan is NOT ready to wait for ISIS to fail any more than he was the Taliban, the PLO or Hamas. As you said, should an attack from Iraq (in any of its future forms) be made on America, then we respond with overwhelming force and total victory. Not before though... preemptive actions and operations do not allow for a clear strategic grand strategy, but defensive or retaliatory actions and operations do. That is the ingredient that we were missing since long before 2001... in fact, all the way back to the end of the First Gulf War.
Finally, now that you have discovered the wonder that is Dan Carlin... you simply MUST listen to the Wrath of the Khans. It is a four-part (I think) series that I have listened to at least four times. Utterly fascinating, and delivered in a manner that even my children have enjoyed... and that is saying something.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Pan-Arabia and my uncle Pat
I've been devouring national security style fiction novels at the
rate of about one every 10 days because for some reason I fancy myself a writer
and am in the process of arranging a book. So much of my "intellectual
time" (if you want to call it that) has been devoted to this endeavor.
However, setting my phone's home page to the Bund has had its’ intended effect,
and not only did I read your posts but I finally caved and download and listened to
your much touted Dan Carlin.
I have an uncle that works at NASA. I also
have a cousin, from the paternal side, that works for that same little outfit. Yes,
I have two honest to goodness rocket scientists sitting on the ol’
family tree. And I remember asking my uncle once, "Why do you love science
so much?" He responded, "I am fascinated by how stuff works."
To me history is a "how stuff
works" guide to politics. It is my favorite form of political discussion,
taking what is known about our past and applying it to what may be in our
future. It is exactly what the Glenn Beck radio program once was. Either Glenn
has spread himself too thin or he's choosing to dump that format into his daily
hour television show, but whatever the cause I find myself rolling my eyes as
he spends one radio broadcast minute after another discussing religious platitudes. There are few things that I loathe more than platitudes. Don't get me
wrong, I believe he is sincere; it's just that he is at a different place than
I am on our path of learning, and discussing religious solutions to specific
geopolitical or domestic problems doesn't appeal to me at present. To be honest
I think he's so fed up with both parties and the system in general that he's sort of
arrived at a forget it, only God can sort this out stage. Maybe he's right, I'm just
not there yet as discussion forums go.
Now this Carlin character seems to
be waste deep into the form of politics I (and by extension the Bund) most
favor. I've only listened to the one podcast, on the middle East, but if this
format is the rule and not the exception I may have found a new favorite
current events show. I also took the liberty and downloaded the free Hardcore
History episodes (13 of them, the others are labeled "classics" such
as Hitler vs. Alexander and cost $2.99), and a select handful of Common Sense
episodes. I see now why you listened to it twice. For one, there's a ton of
information in there, and second they're only released at a rate of once to twice a
month.
So thanks for the repeated recommendations,
I'm glad I finally caved. That being said, allow me to comment on the specifics
of that episode.
First, at one point Carlin stated flatly
the same thing I did a few posts ago - that the US is much better at dealing
with hostile nation states than small, rogue terrorist or insurgent groups. Although his proposed solutions varied from mine. My point in that post was
that if ISIS turns Iraq into another Iran, we will - from a strategic standpoint
- be able to deal with Iraq more effectively. Out maneuvering or fighting a
nation state is something we are well skilled at. Wading into a civil war to play referee,
we are not. He takes that sentiment much, MUCH further however.
He makes a solid argument that the arbitrary
lines of post WWI European design must not be placed on some sacred mantle to
be protected, that it takes a Saddam to enforce such boarders or direct Western
intervention, and as such are unnatural. I think we can all agree that the
European designed map of the Near East has failed. Now as to what will become
of these lines in a post US invasion/withdrawal of Iraq and Afghanistan... Essentially he is predicting
one of two outcomes. One, ISIS (or ISIL) fights within the borders of modern
Iraq until they receive sufficient push back from the Kurds in the North, and
the Shi'ites in the South, and the three state solution that Joe Biden was
laughed off the stage for will naturally form and stabilize. Second, ISIS or
some similar group, will not be stopped by Kurds or its' rival Islamic sect and
eventually a Pan-Arab super state will form, made up of perhaps four or five
smaller states. In essence, a caliphate.
Now his point is that either solution is preferable
to what we have now because if you increase the number of Arab states via Iraq
you'll have natural boundaries that create a stable stasis. If you decrease the
number of Arab states to four or five under the umbrella of a large Pan-Arab
government (that is undemocratic either through theocracy, monarchy, or
dictatorship) that you will have essentially created a Soviet or Chinese model
of statehood that we are well schooled in dealing with. We have either defeated
or contained such large, top heavy, oppressive regimes in our past whereas we
have a poor record dealing with insurgents. In addition, he notes that in such
a regime the youth and the otherwise oppressed will eventually rise up and
throw off their oppressors. And that this revolution will either be a hard
landing, as with the Soviets, or a soft landing, as with the Chinese in which
the Communist Party is trying to manage the transition to capitalism; or as
they describe it “Communism with Chinese characteristics.” Yeah, and Kim Jung
Un can talk to dolphins… you’re not
fooling anybody there chairman.
I found the entire diatribe fascinating. Especially the ideas on a
Pan-Arab state. He's equating fundamentalist Islam's style of rule (and a
theocracy is the most likely outcome in this scenario) with communism, in
essence noting they are both unsustainable because they run contrary to natural
human desires. So he's asking why not let them form, take their shot at rule,
and watch them topple naturally from within?
I read the man's bio on Wikipedia, and
while I'm reluctant to take that site's information as gospel, I do hope they
got one quote right. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the only two
politicians he thinks could honestly address our problems are Dennis Kucinich
and Ron Paul. These are two diametrically opposed ideologs, but they at least
say what they mean and mean what they say, and aren't afraid to challenge the
status quo or be called nut bags because of their bold proposals. Now what I
hope is he admires them based on that, and not because he embraces them fully, especially
Kucinich (although I don't know how that would be possible,
ideologically).
My point for bringing that up in relation
to his Mid East proposals is that these proposals are unique, and sure to be labeled as nutty by some. But they are also bold, and historically based, so I do not dismiss them out of hand. However, we should bear in mind how much death and
destruction was wrought by the Bolsheviks and the Great Leap Forward. In other
words, I agree that we are much better at managing, containing, and ultimately
defeating large oppressive nation states than we are at fighting small oppressive
bands of militants, and I also agree that eventually - like communism - a large
oppressive theocracy (as represented in a Pan-Arab state) would crumble providing the best chance for an organic
democratic revolution to spring up. However, the "in between" time
could make the Great Leap Forward and the Bolsheviks (respectively) look like
pikers. They were committed to a political ideology and loyal to Party. The
presumed rulers in this instance would be zealots committed to religion and
loyal to God. I see that as a much tougher bond to break. The Soviets killed
what, 20, 30 million of their own to establish and maintain order? Mao killed
easily more than double that. So we have to be careful what we wish for. And
that's before getting into the threat of an aggressive foreign policy of a
grand caliphate that mimics the Soviets.
Now in his defense, he points out how
awful this in between time could be. That no one would want to live in this
time of the European "bandaid" being ripped off, and admits it may
not be the right solution. He advocated a US foreign policy that calls a summit
and tries to establish by peaceful treaty what would be the presumed resulting boarders
of a three-way Iraqi civil war, or even a future Pan-Arab state, so he's
certainly not blind as to what this thing could devolve into while it's
transitioning into a peaceful "stasis", if left to its own devices. As for myself I am inclined to believe
that despite our best intentions any "peace conference" in which we
draw up what our best guess would be of natural boarders, things would still descend
into civil war. In other words, it may be true that ISIS will be stopped in the
north by the Kurds, but it may take the actual fight to convince ISIS of this,
rather than a piece of paper drawn up by outsiders.
The bottom line for me is one he
articulated well - we are now at a point where there is no path to peace that
doesn't involve war. There is no "good" way to untie the Gordian Knot
formed by the post WWI victors when they drew up the spoils of the Ottomans.
What we have found in Iraq - at least thus far - is what doesn't work. Namely,
a superior foreign power implanting democracy within the boarders of a nation
drawn up in a British sitting room. After all our blood and treasure it would
be indeed tragic to just leave. But isn't it more tragic to not learn from our
mistakes? To keep doing the same thing expecting a different result? I'm not
willing to risk one more Marine to enforce boarders that haven't worked for 100
years. I'd prefer to put them on our own boarders, but that's a different post.
The result of our withdrawal will be bloody, no question, but it won't be the
blood of our soldiers. It is time for them to come home, but with a very clear
parting message - no matter who wins their civil wars, no matter what "natural"
boarders are established by the indigenous populations, if any one of the new nations states that arise out of
Iraq, Syria, et al come at us, we will annihilate you, period. If we leave I want them all to be on
notice that nation states have boarders and capitals, parliament houses and
presidential homes, and every one of those will be on the B2 Stealth Bomber
targeting list if you decide to poke this eagle.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Thinking like a Westerner...
In my on-going attempt to keep this blog alive, I'm going to revisit some of F Ryan's previous comments...
In F Ryan's last post, he states that there exists in the middle east a strain of 7th Century Islamic fundamentalism, and that this strain is the root of the problem. It is organized, committed and well supported by the population at large. I'm going to look at that view, and show that THIS is the Western view that is so dangerous to the United States as we learn how best to deal with the people of the region.
If we simply look at the "Arab world" as it is traditionally defined (populations of the member states of the Arab League), then we see a population composed of 55% or more between the ages of 18 and 26... and 60% of those are unemployed and suffering staggering levels of poverty. Formerly (before the Syrian revolt and the Arab Spring uprisings), states like Egypt and Syria and Libya required employment and some form of party affiliation to cast any kind of vote, even at a local level. I don't know if this is still true... but that means it is the status quo for societies that are trying to define themselves even now. States like the UAE and Saudi Arabia still refuse to allow 51% of their population to vote at all... women... and those votes are never for anything meaningful like political leadership or public referendums.
What prospects do young Arab-speaking men in places like Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Oman have if they are not born into wealth? In the past, these men joined (either voluntarily or otherwise) the army of their respective nation. A paycheck, food, shelter, clothing and a degree of prestige and pride were instilled... even if the purpose and drive for personal development was lacking. Now those military arms are all but non-existent. So they join the equivalent of local "gangs" now... we call them militias... which do the same thing... try to instill a sense of purpose and drive into an otherwise meaningless future for these young men.
Attention that is paid to those proposing a caliphate is simply large portions of the populations expressing an urge and desire to have their voices heard. Admittedly, that might mean having their voices heard over everyone else... I mean the Sunnis wanting to rule over Shi'ites, for example, and vice versa... but it is a fundamental need that isn't being met by any current or past regime in the region.
Let's look at Israel. Not Palestine, but Israel. Here, we see a society where ultra-conservative members of the Jewish faith live and work side-by-side with Israelis that consider themselves ethnically Jewish, but hold no faith with them in a religious sense. I don't speak of a fringe element, either... Haredi Jews compromise as much as 20% of all Jewish nationals in the country... equal to the number of non-religious secular Jewish citizens. This society, even with all its troubles and trials, is a growing society, and a prosperous one. There is no oil in Israel, very little in the way of conventional arable land, and no abundance of natural resources to offset the problems any growing society meets year-to-year.
What Israel has and the Arab world lacks is a sense of common purpose and shared pride. A sense of unity and community. It is our Western attitudes and biases that lead us to think that the troubles in the region can be blamed simply on a single strain of religious zealotry or fundamental views of religious laws only because they are so different from our own.
I do, however, agree with F Ryan in this: it was our Western attitudes and biases that caused the failure of the current and past efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan... but no good will come of future efforts if we continue to follow them, either.
In F Ryan's last post, he states that there exists in the middle east a strain of 7th Century Islamic fundamentalism, and that this strain is the root of the problem. It is organized, committed and well supported by the population at large. I'm going to look at that view, and show that THIS is the Western view that is so dangerous to the United States as we learn how best to deal with the people of the region.
If we simply look at the "Arab world" as it is traditionally defined (populations of the member states of the Arab League), then we see a population composed of 55% or more between the ages of 18 and 26... and 60% of those are unemployed and suffering staggering levels of poverty. Formerly (before the Syrian revolt and the Arab Spring uprisings), states like Egypt and Syria and Libya required employment and some form of party affiliation to cast any kind of vote, even at a local level. I don't know if this is still true... but that means it is the status quo for societies that are trying to define themselves even now. States like the UAE and Saudi Arabia still refuse to allow 51% of their population to vote at all... women... and those votes are never for anything meaningful like political leadership or public referendums.
What prospects do young Arab-speaking men in places like Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon or Oman have if they are not born into wealth? In the past, these men joined (either voluntarily or otherwise) the army of their respective nation. A paycheck, food, shelter, clothing and a degree of prestige and pride were instilled... even if the purpose and drive for personal development was lacking. Now those military arms are all but non-existent. So they join the equivalent of local "gangs" now... we call them militias... which do the same thing... try to instill a sense of purpose and drive into an otherwise meaningless future for these young men.
Attention that is paid to those proposing a caliphate is simply large portions of the populations expressing an urge and desire to have their voices heard. Admittedly, that might mean having their voices heard over everyone else... I mean the Sunnis wanting to rule over Shi'ites, for example, and vice versa... but it is a fundamental need that isn't being met by any current or past regime in the region.
Let's look at Israel. Not Palestine, but Israel. Here, we see a society where ultra-conservative members of the Jewish faith live and work side-by-side with Israelis that consider themselves ethnically Jewish, but hold no faith with them in a religious sense. I don't speak of a fringe element, either... Haredi Jews compromise as much as 20% of all Jewish nationals in the country... equal to the number of non-religious secular Jewish citizens. This society, even with all its troubles and trials, is a growing society, and a prosperous one. There is no oil in Israel, very little in the way of conventional arable land, and no abundance of natural resources to offset the problems any growing society meets year-to-year.
What Israel has and the Arab world lacks is a sense of common purpose and shared pride. A sense of unity and community. It is our Western attitudes and biases that lead us to think that the troubles in the region can be blamed simply on a single strain of religious zealotry or fundamental views of religious laws only because they are so different from our own.
I do, however, agree with F Ryan in this: it was our Western attitudes and biases that caused the failure of the current and past efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan... but no good will come of future efforts if we continue to follow them, either.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
I hate being in a rut...
Ok, terrible pun in the title... still better than Bangles lyrics, though.
The rut I am referring to is a "road usage tax" and one has been implemented in Oregon just last week. On the promise that, once it is tested and vetted by "volunteers" across the great state of Oregon, the RUT will reduce (but not eliminate) the Oregon state gasoline tax as the primary revenue source for road and bridge upkeep.
Well, we all know how often a "tax" is ever reduced (let alone eliminated, case in point: PA's gaming revenue was supposed to eliminate retired state citizens' need to pay property taxes... yet every single person in PA is STILL paying property tax, 8 years after gaming has been established). We aren't looking at a PA RUT... yet, but I'm sure this is going to be the latest rage in state revenue grabs... with cars becoming more and more efficient, and people driving less and less due to the $3.60+ price of gas over the last year, what can you expect? Gasoline revenues are a public statistic in all 50 states, so its easy to see that the national average for gasoline consumption is down 6% over the last 3 years... which I assume means a 6% decrease in gasoline tax revenues, which means 6% less in monies for the repair, upkeep and maintenance of our roads, highways and interstates. Add that to the $55 billion the nation is short in infrastructure expense already, and yes, I do see the states jumping all over this.
I have a 114 mile daily commute... that's 27,360 miles annually just for my job. Add to that the running to and from town, schools, colleges, stores and my wife's miles (call in another 12,000 even) and I'm looking at roughly 40k a year... and the national "average" of miles driven annually is 18,000??? This is going to be a game changer for me. At more than twice the national average in miles (who came up with that average, by the way?), what is my bill going to be?
More importantly, I am REALLY not okay with the Government (state or federal) putting a GPS tracker in my car (which is how Oregon is doing things). Not only will they have data on how far I drive, but also how fast, what my destinations are, and when I am travelling. Aren't detailed records and recordings of my phone calls, texts and emails for the last 12 years enough? When is the info grab that this government is jumping into with both feet going to end?
Do I need to fear sounding like the "Tinfoil Hat Brigade" commander if I say that when I imagine what is at the bottom of THIS slippery slope, it keeps me awake at night? Because it really does...
The rut I am referring to is a "road usage tax" and one has been implemented in Oregon just last week. On the promise that, once it is tested and vetted by "volunteers" across the great state of Oregon, the RUT will reduce (but not eliminate) the Oregon state gasoline tax as the primary revenue source for road and bridge upkeep.
Well, we all know how often a "tax" is ever reduced (let alone eliminated, case in point: PA's gaming revenue was supposed to eliminate retired state citizens' need to pay property taxes... yet every single person in PA is STILL paying property tax, 8 years after gaming has been established). We aren't looking at a PA RUT... yet, but I'm sure this is going to be the latest rage in state revenue grabs... with cars becoming more and more efficient, and people driving less and less due to the $3.60+ price of gas over the last year, what can you expect? Gasoline revenues are a public statistic in all 50 states, so its easy to see that the national average for gasoline consumption is down 6% over the last 3 years... which I assume means a 6% decrease in gasoline tax revenues, which means 6% less in monies for the repair, upkeep and maintenance of our roads, highways and interstates. Add that to the $55 billion the nation is short in infrastructure expense already, and yes, I do see the states jumping all over this.
I have a 114 mile daily commute... that's 27,360 miles annually just for my job. Add to that the running to and from town, schools, colleges, stores and my wife's miles (call in another 12,000 even) and I'm looking at roughly 40k a year... and the national "average" of miles driven annually is 18,000??? This is going to be a game changer for me. At more than twice the national average in miles (who came up with that average, by the way?), what is my bill going to be?
More importantly, I am REALLY not okay with the Government (state or federal) putting a GPS tracker in my car (which is how Oregon is doing things). Not only will they have data on how far I drive, but also how fast, what my destinations are, and when I am travelling. Aren't detailed records and recordings of my phone calls, texts and emails for the last 12 years enough? When is the info grab that this government is jumping into with both feet going to end?
Do I need to fear sounding like the "Tinfoil Hat Brigade" commander if I say that when I imagine what is at the bottom of THIS slippery slope, it keeps me awake at night? Because it really does...
Monday, June 30, 2014
More musings...
Dan Carlin's latest Common Sense podcast is one of his best, I think... and I've heard it twice now. I'd love for you all to listen, but if you don't, here's the Titus-condensed version:
The crisis in Iraq is the result of very nearly 100 years of bad foreign policy, starting with the Entante Powers of WWI right through to the post-invasion provisional government set up by the US in 2005. Simply put, why the UK, France, Turkey, the UN, the US or anyone else would or could think they would work in the best interest of the Iraqi people in general is beyond me. Hind sight being 20/20, I think we can easily see that NO NATION had the best interests of the Iraqi people first and foremost in their planning offices, and Mr. Carlin goes a long way to show that with real, objective historical review. He goes on to say that what is happening now in Iraq is almost the same as the "three state solution" we argued about here on the Bund... divide Iraq into a Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite states that would self-govern themselves, and throw away the arbitrary lines that were drawn on maps in 1918 by the victorious Allies as they carved new colonies out of the former Ottoman territory.
His point about the "three state solution" was particularly topical, I thought. Kurdistan exists... no question about that. Even Turkey has all but recognized it. ISIS is carving out the Sunni portion of the Iraqi map, and what is left is, demographically speaking, Shi'ite. This wasn't a peaceful transition... far, far from... but I think it was a necessary one. I'd even have to agree that, had we given the Sunni people their own state back in 2005, they'd still have that state now... and the violence be over at worst, and avoided at best.
I found it refreshing that Mr. Carlin didn't blame one side of the political aisle or the other... it wasn't one administration's fault over another... it was simply failed foreign policy from start to finish. Our nation was founded on the principals of self determination of the people, yet we routinely deny that self determination to other people... why?
I had to agree that the "Arab Spring" we saw blooming over the last four years was also a result of our foreign policy. It, however, was "undirected" by a superpower such as the US... and was far more spontaneous than I think anyone in Washington DC was ready for. What we don't hear in the media is that the Arab Spring can't happen if there isn't a very substantial portion of the Arab world's population that is unhappy with repressive, ultra-conservative regimes dictating every aspect of life to the people. These zealots calling for a return to a "caliphate" are calling for the impossible... as is evidenced by the situation in Iran right now (and for the last 40 years), and the very near future in places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Gotta go to work... more later...
The crisis in Iraq is the result of very nearly 100 years of bad foreign policy, starting with the Entante Powers of WWI right through to the post-invasion provisional government set up by the US in 2005. Simply put, why the UK, France, Turkey, the UN, the US or anyone else would or could think they would work in the best interest of the Iraqi people in general is beyond me. Hind sight being 20/20, I think we can easily see that NO NATION had the best interests of the Iraqi people first and foremost in their planning offices, and Mr. Carlin goes a long way to show that with real, objective historical review. He goes on to say that what is happening now in Iraq is almost the same as the "three state solution" we argued about here on the Bund... divide Iraq into a Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite states that would self-govern themselves, and throw away the arbitrary lines that were drawn on maps in 1918 by the victorious Allies as they carved new colonies out of the former Ottoman territory.
His point about the "three state solution" was particularly topical, I thought. Kurdistan exists... no question about that. Even Turkey has all but recognized it. ISIS is carving out the Sunni portion of the Iraqi map, and what is left is, demographically speaking, Shi'ite. This wasn't a peaceful transition... far, far from... but I think it was a necessary one. I'd even have to agree that, had we given the Sunni people their own state back in 2005, they'd still have that state now... and the violence be over at worst, and avoided at best.
I found it refreshing that Mr. Carlin didn't blame one side of the political aisle or the other... it wasn't one administration's fault over another... it was simply failed foreign policy from start to finish. Our nation was founded on the principals of self determination of the people, yet we routinely deny that self determination to other people... why?
I had to agree that the "Arab Spring" we saw blooming over the last four years was also a result of our foreign policy. It, however, was "undirected" by a superpower such as the US... and was far more spontaneous than I think anyone in Washington DC was ready for. What we don't hear in the media is that the Arab Spring can't happen if there isn't a very substantial portion of the Arab world's population that is unhappy with repressive, ultra-conservative regimes dictating every aspect of life to the people. These zealots calling for a return to a "caliphate" are calling for the impossible... as is evidenced by the situation in Iran right now (and for the last 40 years), and the very near future in places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Gotta go to work... more later...
Friday, June 20, 2014
Tasteless...
Seriously? You're quoting Bangles lyrics... here... on the Bund? That crosses a very real line, my friend.
First off... Palestine was NOT my example of a self-sustaining, food rich society. Far from, in fact. I mentioned it only in that the farms I used as examples are located in Palestine and Jordan, very near to the place where Christ was baptized.
Secondly, I'm not so ready to dismiss my position. Zealotry is real... but it is NOT limited to the Islamic world, and it is not only those fanatics that call for a re-institution of a medieval caliphate that exist as a threat to peaceful Western lifestyles.
The radical nature of this "ultra-conservative" sect of Islam is dangerous only so long as it has adherents, and most (if not all) of its adherents are under 30 years of age, male, unemployed and see no viable prospects for their future, immediate or otherwise. When this was NOT the case in the Levant, places like Beirut, Damascus, Antioch and Cairo were seen as vibrant, lively places to live and do business... and I'm not talking about ancient history. I'm referring to as recently as the 1950's.
It is impossible for us (the Bund) to expect these people of the Arab world to willingly embrace the Western dream of the ideal... it is too culturally different to translate in any meaningful manner. When I talk about real, honest "independence" for the people of places like Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan... and smaller hot-beds like Yemen, Sudan, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Libya... I'm talking about the rights of those people to self determination. To decide for themselves how they want to run their lives, their societies and their lands... and to not have those decisions made by foreign powers whose interests are NOT the same as the people they are controlling. All the blood, sweat, tears and treasure we spent to get a real, "democratic" vote established in Iraq was for what? Air time for an American President trying to justify his part in the matter? Even if all intentions were honest and good... nothing came of them. Surely we are all aware of which road is paved with good intentions, right?
America has succeeded where nearly every other nation has failed when it comes to personal liberty... but it wasn't easy and it certainly wasn't without cost. Think of the hundreds of thousands of lives WE have spent shaping this nation from an idea summed up in the Declaration of Independence and into the nation that has matured to a point where one half of the Presidential election ballot was going to be either a black man or a white woman. We paid that cost... and it isn't perfect, but it is the best around.
Why, then, is it wrong to let other peoples find their own way? Why can't they pay their own costs, as we have done here? Could part of the problem with failing nations like Greece, Spain, Italy, Wiemar Germany, the USSR, be that they DID NOT pay that cost, and thus had no appreciation for the liberty they were given?
The best example other than us is Britain... and they certainly paid their dues. As did Australia. Brasil. South Africa. Jordan. Why can't Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran do the same? If the violence spreads, respond. Otherwise, stand back and help pick up the pieces when its over.
First off... Palestine was NOT my example of a self-sustaining, food rich society. Far from, in fact. I mentioned it only in that the farms I used as examples are located in Palestine and Jordan, very near to the place where Christ was baptized.
Secondly, I'm not so ready to dismiss my position. Zealotry is real... but it is NOT limited to the Islamic world, and it is not only those fanatics that call for a re-institution of a medieval caliphate that exist as a threat to peaceful Western lifestyles.
The radical nature of this "ultra-conservative" sect of Islam is dangerous only so long as it has adherents, and most (if not all) of its adherents are under 30 years of age, male, unemployed and see no viable prospects for their future, immediate or otherwise. When this was NOT the case in the Levant, places like Beirut, Damascus, Antioch and Cairo were seen as vibrant, lively places to live and do business... and I'm not talking about ancient history. I'm referring to as recently as the 1950's.
It is impossible for us (the Bund) to expect these people of the Arab world to willingly embrace the Western dream of the ideal... it is too culturally different to translate in any meaningful manner. When I talk about real, honest "independence" for the people of places like Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan... and smaller hot-beds like Yemen, Sudan, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Libya... I'm talking about the rights of those people to self determination. To decide for themselves how they want to run their lives, their societies and their lands... and to not have those decisions made by foreign powers whose interests are NOT the same as the people they are controlling. All the blood, sweat, tears and treasure we spent to get a real, "democratic" vote established in Iraq was for what? Air time for an American President trying to justify his part in the matter? Even if all intentions were honest and good... nothing came of them. Surely we are all aware of which road is paved with good intentions, right?
America has succeeded where nearly every other nation has failed when it comes to personal liberty... but it wasn't easy and it certainly wasn't without cost. Think of the hundreds of thousands of lives WE have spent shaping this nation from an idea summed up in the Declaration of Independence and into the nation that has matured to a point where one half of the Presidential election ballot was going to be either a black man or a white woman. We paid that cost... and it isn't perfect, but it is the best around.
Why, then, is it wrong to let other peoples find their own way? Why can't they pay their own costs, as we have done here? Could part of the problem with failing nations like Greece, Spain, Italy, Wiemar Germany, the USSR, be that they DID NOT pay that cost, and thus had no appreciation for the liberty they were given?
The best example other than us is Britain... and they certainly paid their dues. As did Australia. Brasil. South Africa. Jordan. Why can't Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran do the same? If the violence spreads, respond. Otherwise, stand back and help pick up the pieces when its over.
Walk like an Egyptian...
You are thinking like a Westerner. This has been our problem - in my estimation - time and time again.
Look, I do not disagree that plentiful food supplies are a major factor in preventing Western nations from descending into violence. But think about what you used as your example of a Mid East region (because it's not a state) that has successfully adopted self sufficient farming/water - Palestine. Yet they elected HAMAS. These same individuals danced in the streets on 9/11 (literally, if you remember the broadcasted images). Plentiful food supplies will not stop religious zealotry. Palestinians have been offered that and more, up 90% of their demands put into writing and ready to sign, yet they walked away from the agreement. We're over here thinking that if they just had plentiful jobs and food the violence would end, meanwhile they're there thinking (at least as is represented in their chosen leadership), "How can I push all the Jews into the Red Sea?" The mindset of Western "fixes" for the region is flawed on a very fundamental level.
The bottom line is there is a 7th century strain of Islam running through the Muslim world. It is organized, committed, and worst of all enjoys far too much passive support from non combatant Muslims. There is no strawberry patch or Twinkies supply that will quell this desire for a caliphate. Now I will agree, plentiful food and gainful employment can help to prevent - or at least shore up resistance - against this caliphate from spreading a literal, hot war across ever more boarders in the region, but as long as Sharia law is propped up and promulgated by "peaceful" nations like Saudi Arabia then the region will continue to turn out violent,committed jihadists, as we saw on 9./11.
To put it simply, as of 2014 I do not see evidence that when given the opportunity the Arab world would embrace a democratic form of government over a fascistic theocratic regime. And so long as that's true no amount of food supply will produce a peaceful society. Westerners are happy and peaceful when there is a chicken in every pot and a pay check in every home, very true... but I think it a grave mistake to believe the same can be said of men living by a 7th Century set of rules whom find passive supporters by the millions among their brethren. From the mounds of evidence I have witnessed the majority mindset of the region simply has not evolved to the point that a full belly can breed a peaceful man. It's just not that simple. The commitment to hate is far too deep to be dislodged by home canned tomatoes.
Look, I do not disagree that plentiful food supplies are a major factor in preventing Western nations from descending into violence. But think about what you used as your example of a Mid East region (because it's not a state) that has successfully adopted self sufficient farming/water - Palestine. Yet they elected HAMAS. These same individuals danced in the streets on 9/11 (literally, if you remember the broadcasted images). Plentiful food supplies will not stop religious zealotry. Palestinians have been offered that and more, up 90% of their demands put into writing and ready to sign, yet they walked away from the agreement. We're over here thinking that if they just had plentiful jobs and food the violence would end, meanwhile they're there thinking (at least as is represented in their chosen leadership), "How can I push all the Jews into the Red Sea?" The mindset of Western "fixes" for the region is flawed on a very fundamental level.
The bottom line is there is a 7th century strain of Islam running through the Muslim world. It is organized, committed, and worst of all enjoys far too much passive support from non combatant Muslims. There is no strawberry patch or Twinkies supply that will quell this desire for a caliphate. Now I will agree, plentiful food and gainful employment can help to prevent - or at least shore up resistance - against this caliphate from spreading a literal, hot war across ever more boarders in the region, but as long as Sharia law is propped up and promulgated by "peaceful" nations like Saudi Arabia then the region will continue to turn out violent,committed jihadists, as we saw on 9./11.
To put it simply, as of 2014 I do not see evidence that when given the opportunity the Arab world would embrace a democratic form of government over a fascistic theocratic regime. And so long as that's true no amount of food supply will produce a peaceful society. Westerners are happy and peaceful when there is a chicken in every pot and a pay check in every home, very true... but I think it a grave mistake to believe the same can be said of men living by a 7th Century set of rules whom find passive supporters by the millions among their brethren. From the mounds of evidence I have witnessed the majority mindset of the region simply has not evolved to the point that a full belly can breed a peaceful man. It's just not that simple. The commitment to hate is far too deep to be dislodged by home canned tomatoes.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
On Freedom...
I'm hesitant to say that Iraqis don't want "freedom" either collectively or individually. It IS a fundamental, universal truth that human nature craves that state. What we don't crave is the responsibility that comes with freedom.
Even under the Ba'athist regime of Saddam, Iraqi's saw many of their daily needs provided by the State rather than by their own efforts. When the success of the US invasion in 2003 removed an entrenched government (which had existed for longer than 57% of the nation had been alive), the numbers of unemployed were staggering even here in the US. 600,000 military personnel out of work. No one to deliver food and water, no repairs to infrastructure that had been devastated by the fighting.
I can't find the link, but I read an article about this very problem. The jist was that it cost humanitarian aid from abroad millions of dollars to deliver food and medicine to Iraqi citizens and non-combatants, food that was never adequately spread out and much of it was never delivered at all. Not because the people didn't need it, but because the means to get it to the people that needed it was not there. The US Army had its hands full, the Iraqi government was in shambles, and the people themselves were not able to take on the tasks necessary without the government support that they'd had (good or bad) for the 25 years previously.
What the article was saying was that had we taken the money we (the humanitarian West) had wasted on the food and medicine that never got delivered... sums far in excess of $60,000,000... we could have put into place the means by which a city the size of Baghdad could feed itself long-term. Fruit and nut trees, perennial shrubs, herbs, water catchment and aquifer replenishment, urban livestock habitats... the means by which cities can sustain themselves almost indefinitely with only the initial installation of earthworks and trees driving cost.
Now, I can hear F Ryan already... chomping his tongue off to keep from screaming "Tree-hugger!" or "What kind of hippie crap is this?" I'm not wearing patchouli oil, Berkinstock sandals, or tie-died Jerr-Bear tees... I'm offering a possible solution to problems like this in the future.
If there is no "want" in regards to food or water... what happens to the unrest that brings about violence of the sorts we see in Iraq right now? If there is no question about where the next meal is coming from, why take to the streets, throwing bricks or Molotov cocktails? I know filet mignon doesn't grow on trees, and bread doesn't grow on bushes... but enough food can be grown, even in urban areas, to sustain a population through hard times if nothing else were available.
There are test farms in Palestine and Jordan right now that are producing tons (literally TONS) of food, all year around, with no additional water resources or chemical fertilizers being bought or used. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are spending millions to research how they can do the same. This is BIG BUSINESS that is profitable AND sustainable... and fixes the problems that cause the unrest in the area.
The more I think about this sort of effort, I am drawn to the fact that the reason there is so little violent unrest here in the West (and specifically in the US) is that there is so much food! Say what you want, but we produce a lot of food here... the surplus alone is staggering. Far more than our 350 million citizens need. However, if that supply were cut off or eliminated, do you think we'd be as stable and peaceful as we are now? Or would the US look like much of the Middle East or central Africa, where people fear for their lives with each passing season? It wasn't that long ago (1932, in fact) that the second largest "peaceful" protest ever to occur on US soil was a 70,000 man march on Washington DC from Pittsburgh PA led by Fr. James Cox... and a large part of the reason they marched was that they and their families were starving to death.
Can we deny that Victory Gardens, urban farms and container gardens helped feed millions during the war years? Huey Long promised a chicken in every pot... but it was the war years that put a coop on every block in New York City, and a vegetable patch in every front yard of Los Angeles. Why won't that work now? Why can't THAT be the sort of effort we make to "aide" a foreign nation in need?
How is that not the path to actual independence?
Even under the Ba'athist regime of Saddam, Iraqi's saw many of their daily needs provided by the State rather than by their own efforts. When the success of the US invasion in 2003 removed an entrenched government (which had existed for longer than 57% of the nation had been alive), the numbers of unemployed were staggering even here in the US. 600,000 military personnel out of work. No one to deliver food and water, no repairs to infrastructure that had been devastated by the fighting.
I can't find the link, but I read an article about this very problem. The jist was that it cost humanitarian aid from abroad millions of dollars to deliver food and medicine to Iraqi citizens and non-combatants, food that was never adequately spread out and much of it was never delivered at all. Not because the people didn't need it, but because the means to get it to the people that needed it was not there. The US Army had its hands full, the Iraqi government was in shambles, and the people themselves were not able to take on the tasks necessary without the government support that they'd had (good or bad) for the 25 years previously.
What the article was saying was that had we taken the money we (the humanitarian West) had wasted on the food and medicine that never got delivered... sums far in excess of $60,000,000... we could have put into place the means by which a city the size of Baghdad could feed itself long-term. Fruit and nut trees, perennial shrubs, herbs, water catchment and aquifer replenishment, urban livestock habitats... the means by which cities can sustain themselves almost indefinitely with only the initial installation of earthworks and trees driving cost.
Now, I can hear F Ryan already... chomping his tongue off to keep from screaming "Tree-hugger!" or "What kind of hippie crap is this?" I'm not wearing patchouli oil, Berkinstock sandals, or tie-died Jerr-Bear tees... I'm offering a possible solution to problems like this in the future.
If there is no "want" in regards to food or water... what happens to the unrest that brings about violence of the sorts we see in Iraq right now? If there is no question about where the next meal is coming from, why take to the streets, throwing bricks or Molotov cocktails? I know filet mignon doesn't grow on trees, and bread doesn't grow on bushes... but enough food can be grown, even in urban areas, to sustain a population through hard times if nothing else were available.
There are test farms in Palestine and Jordan right now that are producing tons (literally TONS) of food, all year around, with no additional water resources or chemical fertilizers being bought or used. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are spending millions to research how they can do the same. This is BIG BUSINESS that is profitable AND sustainable... and fixes the problems that cause the unrest in the area.
The more I think about this sort of effort, I am drawn to the fact that the reason there is so little violent unrest here in the West (and specifically in the US) is that there is so much food! Say what you want, but we produce a lot of food here... the surplus alone is staggering. Far more than our 350 million citizens need. However, if that supply were cut off or eliminated, do you think we'd be as stable and peaceful as we are now? Or would the US look like much of the Middle East or central Africa, where people fear for their lives with each passing season? It wasn't that long ago (1932, in fact) that the second largest "peaceful" protest ever to occur on US soil was a 70,000 man march on Washington DC from Pittsburgh PA led by Fr. James Cox... and a large part of the reason they marched was that they and their families were starving to death.
Can we deny that Victory Gardens, urban farms and container gardens helped feed millions during the war years? Huey Long promised a chicken in every pot... but it was the war years that put a coop on every block in New York City, and a vegetable patch in every front yard of Los Angeles. Why won't that work now? Why can't THAT be the sort of effort we make to "aide" a foreign nation in need?
How is that not the path to actual independence?
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
275
That is the number of troops the POTUS is sending to reinforce our embassy in Iraq as the ISIS horde sweeps through the country.
Our embassy there is the most expensive, advanced, and biggest (containing 8 football fields worth of space) ever built by the US. It is a fortress that would make the empires of old jealous. The ISIS advance makes it clear that the supposed 900,000 man Iraqi army that we trained simply doesn't have the will or conviction to fight in large numbers. The ISIS force is estimated at 10,000 (on the high side). The theory is that they (the Iraqis) have fallen back to Baghdad to protect the capital. However, my own sense of historical battles tells me this is a military maneuver designed to repel an enemy that outnumbers you, that you cannot hope to face in the open field, not one that you outnumber 9 to 1. So I am dubious about that "theory", to say the least. In my estimation the only way to prevent the fall of Baghdad, and the subsequent overrun of "fortress Iraq" (our embassy), is to send in 10,000 Marines. Personally, I no longer trust the "warmongering" G.W. Bush to allow these Marines to engage in total war, so I especially oppose this president essentially starting the war over - retake Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit, and on and on and on. It would be the worst "do-over" in the history of mankind. This entire fiasco is the result of piece meal, politically correct war making, and as I stated the other day we will be engaged in an never ending game of whack-a-mole, sending troops in to beat fundamentalist hordes back, leaving, then returning again until some Iraqi George Washington steps up and leads his people to the promised land.
What immediately occurs to me as I consider the prospect of our boys fighting until the Iraqis step up, is that if the Iraqi force is even half of the estimated 900k, and they can't turn back 10,000, then that whack-a-mole game will be played by generations of Americans - my sons, their sons, and their sons. And even then the Iraqi people may not step up. If the Iraqis do not make a stand here and push this force back into Syria, we will have final proof that our experiment of democratizing the Near East has failed. As of 2014 they will have proven unready for the responsibility of defending and maintaining a republic. It is my opinion that they simply do not have the intimate familiarity with, and inherent desire for freedom the way we do, and I am done using the lives of US Marines to try and convince them of the contrary. We CAN beat this ISIS horde, no question. But much in the way you can make the scam of social security work on paper, the real life application of sending in our boys by the thousands - correction, REsending in our boys by the thousands - is fraught with the human errors of our civilian leadership whom have proved themselves incapable (in either party) of committing to the concept of total war.
So to say this as succinctly as possible - if the Iraq force cannot repel ISIS from Baghdad and begin retaking those cities ON THEIR OWN, then we leave. Period.
In that context I have a simple question. What can 275 soldiers do much more effectively than 10,000?
Answer: evacuate an embassy.
As of now I fully expect my sons to witness what their grandfather's did in South East Asia... a last helicopter desperately trying to depart an embassy under attack. The word "sad" is incomprehensibly inadequate to describe what we are seeing. And yes Titus, I did expect this to end differently. I honestly thought that the desire for freedom was universal. They may not have wanted Saddam, but neither do they want a pluralistic society, not in large enough numbers. Islam is too potent a force, the commitment to its' law too appealing for too many for western style governance to take hold. And as we've seen in every conflict throughout history - the most committed wins.
Our embassy there is the most expensive, advanced, and biggest (containing 8 football fields worth of space) ever built by the US. It is a fortress that would make the empires of old jealous. The ISIS advance makes it clear that the supposed 900,000 man Iraqi army that we trained simply doesn't have the will or conviction to fight in large numbers. The ISIS force is estimated at 10,000 (on the high side). The theory is that they (the Iraqis) have fallen back to Baghdad to protect the capital. However, my own sense of historical battles tells me this is a military maneuver designed to repel an enemy that outnumbers you, that you cannot hope to face in the open field, not one that you outnumber 9 to 1. So I am dubious about that "theory", to say the least. In my estimation the only way to prevent the fall of Baghdad, and the subsequent overrun of "fortress Iraq" (our embassy), is to send in 10,000 Marines. Personally, I no longer trust the "warmongering" G.W. Bush to allow these Marines to engage in total war, so I especially oppose this president essentially starting the war over - retake Baghdad, Mosul, Tikrit, and on and on and on. It would be the worst "do-over" in the history of mankind. This entire fiasco is the result of piece meal, politically correct war making, and as I stated the other day we will be engaged in an never ending game of whack-a-mole, sending troops in to beat fundamentalist hordes back, leaving, then returning again until some Iraqi George Washington steps up and leads his people to the promised land.
What immediately occurs to me as I consider the prospect of our boys fighting until the Iraqis step up, is that if the Iraqi force is even half of the estimated 900k, and they can't turn back 10,000, then that whack-a-mole game will be played by generations of Americans - my sons, their sons, and their sons. And even then the Iraqi people may not step up. If the Iraqis do not make a stand here and push this force back into Syria, we will have final proof that our experiment of democratizing the Near East has failed. As of 2014 they will have proven unready for the responsibility of defending and maintaining a republic. It is my opinion that they simply do not have the intimate familiarity with, and inherent desire for freedom the way we do, and I am done using the lives of US Marines to try and convince them of the contrary. We CAN beat this ISIS horde, no question. But much in the way you can make the scam of social security work on paper, the real life application of sending in our boys by the thousands - correction, REsending in our boys by the thousands - is fraught with the human errors of our civilian leadership whom have proved themselves incapable (in either party) of committing to the concept of total war.
So to say this as succinctly as possible - if the Iraq force cannot repel ISIS from Baghdad and begin retaking those cities ON THEIR OWN, then we leave. Period.
In that context I have a simple question. What can 275 soldiers do much more effectively than 10,000?
Answer: evacuate an embassy.
As of now I fully expect my sons to witness what their grandfather's did in South East Asia... a last helicopter desperately trying to depart an embassy under attack. The word "sad" is incomprehensibly inadequate to describe what we are seeing. And yes Titus, I did expect this to end differently. I honestly thought that the desire for freedom was universal. They may not have wanted Saddam, but neither do they want a pluralistic society, not in large enough numbers. Islam is too potent a force, the commitment to its' law too appealing for too many for western style governance to take hold. And as we've seen in every conflict throughout history - the most committed wins.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Happy Father's Day
To all reading this, Happy Father's Day! Enjoy the moments with kids and family... they mean the most.
I guess I was mistaken...
I thought we were far more in agreement than we actually are, I guess.
I take nothing away from your points... they are valid, 100%. I simply do not agree with the premise they are based on: that any party or politician would or could have done what was needed to complete the job to my satisfaction.
You assumed I was a fan of even the Tea Party Darlings like Cruz and Paul... but I am most certainly not. Thus, any discussion we have on the points you made from here on would be utterly moot. So, let me make my position perfectly clear before we proceed any further.
Pick your example of the most "conservative" candidate that you could run in a presidential election... F Ryan's "dream candidate"... someone that could fit the bill for everything he wants in a President, but could still be elected (so, Ron Paul, whom I have never seen as a viable candidate... ever... would be off the table), and ask yourself if he/she could (or would, even) accomplish any ONE of the following things I feel need to be done:
1) Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security. Everything that HS is was already in place prior to its creation... CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, INS, Border Patrol, DEA, Secret Service, Marshal Service, DIA, Treasury, Coast Guard... it was all there, fully functional and only lacking a means to coordinate and communicate effectively between the various organs. All HS did was increase the cost of each by a factor of 27% and increase the overall size of government by 17%. I have seen no evidence to date that the nation is any safer because of the new moniker... and 14 years of no measurable and specific benefits means we don't need it.
2) Repeal every facet of the Patriot Act. Enough said.
3) Reinforce the FACT that unwarranted (literally) surveillance of American citizens is illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Stop all current "listening" and put in place the means by which any future peeking can be prosecuted WITHOUT oversight or control by the Executive Branch... regardless of who is President.
4) Work from DAY ONE to put into place the framework of a balanced budget requirement that would be 100% carved-in-stone before 2029.
5) Eliminate the Department of Education. Please.
I could run this list on for pages and pages... but my point is made, surely. No one we can elect to the White House NOW is going to fix ANYTHING. I simply do not believe it at all. Anything short of attempting to fix what is wrong is nothing more than contributing to the problem.
If you want to know what sort of political action I am supporting, I can tell you this as a prime example:
Several States have enacted legislation that says that any NEW gun control law that is passed in DC will be ignored at these State's levels. Example: Utah passed a law that says that any gun manufactured in Utah and sold in Utah does not constitute "interstate commerce" and thus is outside of Congress' authority as defined by the Constitution. Now, Remington and Colt are looking to move production facilities into Utah where they will jointly manufacture, assemble and sell specialty weapons to civilian buyers who reside in Utah.
(Due to an internet connection failure, the rest of this post was lost. I'll pick up the threads later and continue... my apologies.)
I take nothing away from your points... they are valid, 100%. I simply do not agree with the premise they are based on: that any party or politician would or could have done what was needed to complete the job to my satisfaction.
You assumed I was a fan of even the Tea Party Darlings like Cruz and Paul... but I am most certainly not. Thus, any discussion we have on the points you made from here on would be utterly moot. So, let me make my position perfectly clear before we proceed any further.
Pick your example of the most "conservative" candidate that you could run in a presidential election... F Ryan's "dream candidate"... someone that could fit the bill for everything he wants in a President, but could still be elected (so, Ron Paul, whom I have never seen as a viable candidate... ever... would be off the table), and ask yourself if he/she could (or would, even) accomplish any ONE of the following things I feel need to be done:
1) Eliminate the Department of Homeland Security. Everything that HS is was already in place prior to its creation... CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, INS, Border Patrol, DEA, Secret Service, Marshal Service, DIA, Treasury, Coast Guard... it was all there, fully functional and only lacking a means to coordinate and communicate effectively between the various organs. All HS did was increase the cost of each by a factor of 27% and increase the overall size of government by 17%. I have seen no evidence to date that the nation is any safer because of the new moniker... and 14 years of no measurable and specific benefits means we don't need it.
2) Repeal every facet of the Patriot Act. Enough said.
3) Reinforce the FACT that unwarranted (literally) surveillance of American citizens is illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Stop all current "listening" and put in place the means by which any future peeking can be prosecuted WITHOUT oversight or control by the Executive Branch... regardless of who is President.
4) Work from DAY ONE to put into place the framework of a balanced budget requirement that would be 100% carved-in-stone before 2029.
5) Eliminate the Department of Education. Please.
I could run this list on for pages and pages... but my point is made, surely. No one we can elect to the White House NOW is going to fix ANYTHING. I simply do not believe it at all. Anything short of attempting to fix what is wrong is nothing more than contributing to the problem.
If you want to know what sort of political action I am supporting, I can tell you this as a prime example:
Several States have enacted legislation that says that any NEW gun control law that is passed in DC will be ignored at these State's levels. Example: Utah passed a law that says that any gun manufactured in Utah and sold in Utah does not constitute "interstate commerce" and thus is outside of Congress' authority as defined by the Constitution. Now, Remington and Colt are looking to move production facilities into Utah where they will jointly manufacture, assemble and sell specialty weapons to civilian buyers who reside in Utah.
(Due to an internet connection failure, the rest of this post was lost. I'll pick up the threads later and continue... my apologies.)
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Hello Alice
I was extremely tempted not to venture down this rabbit hole of Iraq and Afghanistan any further, but then I happened to glance at your new post. "A prolific texter"... what an awful description of a thirty-something red blooded American male. Alright, fair enough. And I must add, your description of the Bund process, and the return you get on its' investment, was quite eloquent. I will reset my homepage to the Bund, and endeavor to check it daily. I can't make any solid promises but I think it adequate to depend on nothing more than the temptation to demonstrate how brilliant I am at routine intervals... hehe.
I have a few points regarding the shocked state I left you in regarding our dual Near East wars, but first...
I am somewhat consoled to see someone who's intellect I respect so utterly disgusted with the absolute lawlessness of the current administration, and congresses willingness to just whole sale hand over their status as a coequal branch of government, for I vehemently share in this disgust. Now when I say "lawlessness" I mean first and foremost via my own interpretation of the US Constitution (an interpretation which we seem to share), but not just that. Pick your scandal - the IRS; Fast and Furious (in which our AG was held in contempt of congress); the blatant lies about Benghazi, to the now 65,000 illegal minors pouring across our border. When you view these in their totality (and surely I'm missing a few) you're soon left mouth gaping, wondering who the hell is in charge up there. Furthermore, when congress won't act in a manner the president dictates he simply threatens to take his pen and phone and go home. He has taken to making recces appointments when congress in IN session. He uses the EPA to literally "come up" with ways to bankrupt coal, a legal and vital industry. And this Bergdhal "prisoner" swap, don't even get me started. Let me just say, I have enjoyed the first season of the AMC program "Turn." Those officer exchanges were legitimate swaps conducted by two responsible parties whom respected the rules (and yes there are rules) of war. What we did recently was exchange five savages for one deserter (at least). But what left me stunned about the entire affair was the blatant disregard for the law which requires the PoTUS to give 30 days notice to congress prior to any exchange. A legally binding rule that the president himself singed into law with the last Defense Reauthorization Act. Now you can disagree with the law and state that it unconstitutionally limits his powers as CIC, which the president did, but under this premise I can simply ignore the individual mandate in Obamacare. And what was the their response? "Oh, my bad." That was about it. And then Lindsey Graham (R) NC says that impeachment is on the table if the PoTUS does it again. So what are you saying Lindsey? Six Taliban commanders is worthy of impeachment, but five is okay? Dear Lord man, if it weren't for the starch in your shirt there would be nothing holding you upright.
My point being is that for any historically oriented conservative minded American the entire specter of DC seems fully disconnected from reality, the Constitution, and even the laws passed by their own hand. This applies to both parties as the GOP leadership is too scared of its' own shadow to make any meaningful moves. It's a nest of vipers. So Titus, I sincerely feel your pain when you state simply that you'll have done with them and no longer participate. But my friend we can not just cede the federal government to this den of thieves and reprobates.
Consider this - Ted Cruz (R) TX is there. Scott Lee (R) NC, is there. And I assume you're a fan of Rand Paul. These are just three senators of 100 and look at the waves they have made in terms of pressing real constitutional application of the law. Imagine if we sent them reinforcements. What's more, for the first time in the history of our nation the sitting House Majority leader lost his primary race - Erik Cantor in VA lost to David Bratt, of Tea Party backing. Here in my home state of Mississippi the third longest serving member of the senate, Thad Cochran, is days away from losing his primary race to state senator Chris McDaniel, another Tea Party favorite. Now to avoid to get too far into the weeds on these individual races, states and districts let me make my point this way - more and more of the GOP base is feeling as we do. Incumbent Republicans enjoyed an 88% primary reelection rate last cycle, it is now down to 61%. We are at a crucial point where we can push the old guard out if we press the electoral attack. My point being, yes be educated and involved on the local and state level, but then urge and support the guys (and gals) on the state level whom share your views to challenge the Party elders. We must push them out from the bottom up, and if people like you simply abandon the federal level, we can't make that happen.
Now to the Middle East (by the way, I interchange the Near and Middle East occasionally, but I am referring to the same region)...
As I adorned my arm chair military analyst hat these last few days I came to a conclusion. It's clear that operationally we can defeat any army on earth. My critiques were not of our soldiers, not by any stretch of the imagination. It was of the civilian leadership and the so-called experts they employ. Here's an expansion of the two-fold mistakes we made, in my eyes:
1) The ROE's were deplorable. It smacked of a civilian leadership not committed to the concept of total war. It is not only unfair but I believe immoral to send men into harms way so handcuffed in their ability to respond to bullets flying at their head. From embedded reporters (which made for a running real time PR campaign in the middle of war), to not being able to fire on Mosques, to having to identify the type of round being fired at you before selecting your return-fire weapon of choice, put simply the ROE's were a nightmare. Not to mention, we've entered into a era where civilian casualties trump tactics. This is not total war. I don't mean we need Roman rules of engagement, I simply mean to combat a 7th century fighter we at least need Patton. And if you're not willing to do that, don't go.
2.) Let's assume we all felt as you did on Afghanistan (which is more accurate than not), and focus on the more controversial invasion - Iraq. I believe the Bush administration and its supporters (including myself) assumed that once Saddam and his minions were deposed that there would be a scene from Band of Brothers when they liberated Holland. Ok, we kicked out the fascists, here's your country back, go in peace. Only they didn't go in peace. The sectarian differences are so complex, the clans, the religious dedication so visceral that I could scarcely get into all the reasons why this welcoming parade didn't occur, but I can tell you this: we had no plan for what to do when it didn't. We entered into this WWI level of intractable progress which reminded me more of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine rather than the US and Japan (which I always felt was the model to follow here). And when I say we had "no plan" for what to do next that is because pounding them into submission (as we did the zealots of Imperial Japan) was never on the table. In truth, once we realized that the Iraqis were incapable of congealing into a unified stable democratic state we were left with three choices as I see it (and this applies to Afghanistan as well).
A.) Pound them into utter submission, write their Constitution for them and install our own MacArthur style transition government.
B.) Leave.
C.) Engage in a piece-meal back and forth combat mission in which we see territory gained and then given back, in essence "hanging around" until the Iraqis get their democratic act together.
Now which of those sounds like what we opted to do? The problem is there is not a single, read ZERO, functioning democratic government (as we understand democracy) operating within the 22 Arab states of the region. None. The Israelis have been waiting around for a legitimate Palestinian partner since 1948. That conflict is essentially the model we've been operating under - hit the insurgents like whack-a-moles every time they pop up while we wait for democratic Iraqis to step up. And what does the Malaki government do as its' first order of business? It excludes Sunnis. Now guess whether ISIS is Sunni or Shi'ite.
In contrast look at what happened when Israel dealt directly, in open war, with other belligerent state actors, I'm writing now of Egypt and Jordan. They fought, they won, terms were agreed to, and there hasn't been a flair up in 50 plus years.
So my retroactive suggestion to Bush and our civilian leadership is either allow for a MacArthur style transition, along with sane ROEs, or get the hell out. The current PoTUS likes to remind everyone "I was elected to end wars, not start them." Uh huh, right. Remind me again, which CIC authorized the "surge?" Which one promised to close GITMO (which I am not in favor of). Which president is now contemplating military action to stop ISIS and contributed militarily to Qaddafi's overthrow? To a lesser extent he is simply continuing the Bush policies. Hanging around playing whack-a-mole hoping some indigenous band of patriots steps up and takes the reigns. This is a slow bleed. And what did Israel get for showing restraint during the last fifty years of their slow bleed as they played whack-a-mole rather than committing to total war? A democratically elected HAMAS. We are following the same path and we are getting the same result.
Now let me back up for a second and add this final thought which occurred to me like a light bulb going off above my head the other day as I pulled up a map of the ISIS advance towards Baghdad. I was looking at this regional map and saying out loud their name, the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and something hit me. Let's set aside the fact that there would be rampant violence in the take over and subsequent imposition of Sharia law by ISIS or some similar group (and that's a big set aside, I know) and consider something. What happens if we (the West and especially the US) allowed an ISIS-like group to take over in the region and establish their caliphate? They would become a de facto nation-state, yes? A fundamentalist theocracy state like Iran. The same goes for the Taliban take over when we pull out of Afghanistan (which I feel is inevitable at this point). It occurs to me that we are much better at dealing with, fighting and containing actual nation states than we are insurgents embedded among the civilian population. They would suddenly have real borders to defend, oil reserves to protect, and administration buildings they wouldn't want bombed. In other words, we know exactly where to find the Iranian leadership if they chose to attack us. We could crush them in short order, much like Israel did to Jordan. Now the experts will tell you that it is unacceptable to allow the establishment of a nation state from which Al Qaeda and her affiliates could use as safe harbor to attack us from. But by that reasoning we must invade Saudi Arabia, right? 9/11 was funded and carried out by Saudis. At least in this scenario ISIS would offer up a bevy of rich targets - much like Iran - to US bombers if they did attempt to carry out a strike against us or harbor those whom did. We'd know where they were, when they met, who was in charge, how to disable them - they would suffer every exposure other nation states do. They would cease to be this deadly enemy mixed within the population that came out of nowhere, retreated, and then came back again. ISIS would suddenly have real, tangible ground and assets to lose, like Iran.
Look, it's just a thought. I was trying to envision a unique solution to this morbidly complex problem. I'm sure a half dozen Mid East analysts could blow security risk holes in the theory, but then again, they're the same ones who predicted the orange arm bands hugging us and handing over bottles of Vat 69.
I have a few points regarding the shocked state I left you in regarding our dual Near East wars, but first...
I am somewhat consoled to see someone who's intellect I respect so utterly disgusted with the absolute lawlessness of the current administration, and congresses willingness to just whole sale hand over their status as a coequal branch of government, for I vehemently share in this disgust. Now when I say "lawlessness" I mean first and foremost via my own interpretation of the US Constitution (an interpretation which we seem to share), but not just that. Pick your scandal - the IRS; Fast and Furious (in which our AG was held in contempt of congress); the blatant lies about Benghazi, to the now 65,000 illegal minors pouring across our border. When you view these in their totality (and surely I'm missing a few) you're soon left mouth gaping, wondering who the hell is in charge up there. Furthermore, when congress won't act in a manner the president dictates he simply threatens to take his pen and phone and go home. He has taken to making recces appointments when congress in IN session. He uses the EPA to literally "come up" with ways to bankrupt coal, a legal and vital industry. And this Bergdhal "prisoner" swap, don't even get me started. Let me just say, I have enjoyed the first season of the AMC program "Turn." Those officer exchanges were legitimate swaps conducted by two responsible parties whom respected the rules (and yes there are rules) of war. What we did recently was exchange five savages for one deserter (at least). But what left me stunned about the entire affair was the blatant disregard for the law which requires the PoTUS to give 30 days notice to congress prior to any exchange. A legally binding rule that the president himself singed into law with the last Defense Reauthorization Act. Now you can disagree with the law and state that it unconstitutionally limits his powers as CIC, which the president did, but under this premise I can simply ignore the individual mandate in Obamacare. And what was the their response? "Oh, my bad." That was about it. And then Lindsey Graham (R) NC says that impeachment is on the table if the PoTUS does it again. So what are you saying Lindsey? Six Taliban commanders is worthy of impeachment, but five is okay? Dear Lord man, if it weren't for the starch in your shirt there would be nothing holding you upright.
My point being is that for any historically oriented conservative minded American the entire specter of DC seems fully disconnected from reality, the Constitution, and even the laws passed by their own hand. This applies to both parties as the GOP leadership is too scared of its' own shadow to make any meaningful moves. It's a nest of vipers. So Titus, I sincerely feel your pain when you state simply that you'll have done with them and no longer participate. But my friend we can not just cede the federal government to this den of thieves and reprobates.
Consider this - Ted Cruz (R) TX is there. Scott Lee (R) NC, is there. And I assume you're a fan of Rand Paul. These are just three senators of 100 and look at the waves they have made in terms of pressing real constitutional application of the law. Imagine if we sent them reinforcements. What's more, for the first time in the history of our nation the sitting House Majority leader lost his primary race - Erik Cantor in VA lost to David Bratt, of Tea Party backing. Here in my home state of Mississippi the third longest serving member of the senate, Thad Cochran, is days away from losing his primary race to state senator Chris McDaniel, another Tea Party favorite. Now to avoid to get too far into the weeds on these individual races, states and districts let me make my point this way - more and more of the GOP base is feeling as we do. Incumbent Republicans enjoyed an 88% primary reelection rate last cycle, it is now down to 61%. We are at a crucial point where we can push the old guard out if we press the electoral attack. My point being, yes be educated and involved on the local and state level, but then urge and support the guys (and gals) on the state level whom share your views to challenge the Party elders. We must push them out from the bottom up, and if people like you simply abandon the federal level, we can't make that happen.
Now to the Middle East (by the way, I interchange the Near and Middle East occasionally, but I am referring to the same region)...
As I adorned my arm chair military analyst hat these last few days I came to a conclusion. It's clear that operationally we can defeat any army on earth. My critiques were not of our soldiers, not by any stretch of the imagination. It was of the civilian leadership and the so-called experts they employ. Here's an expansion of the two-fold mistakes we made, in my eyes:
1) The ROE's were deplorable. It smacked of a civilian leadership not committed to the concept of total war. It is not only unfair but I believe immoral to send men into harms way so handcuffed in their ability to respond to bullets flying at their head. From embedded reporters (which made for a running real time PR campaign in the middle of war), to not being able to fire on Mosques, to having to identify the type of round being fired at you before selecting your return-fire weapon of choice, put simply the ROE's were a nightmare. Not to mention, we've entered into a era where civilian casualties trump tactics. This is not total war. I don't mean we need Roman rules of engagement, I simply mean to combat a 7th century fighter we at least need Patton. And if you're not willing to do that, don't go.
2.) Let's assume we all felt as you did on Afghanistan (which is more accurate than not), and focus on the more controversial invasion - Iraq. I believe the Bush administration and its supporters (including myself) assumed that once Saddam and his minions were deposed that there would be a scene from Band of Brothers when they liberated Holland. Ok, we kicked out the fascists, here's your country back, go in peace. Only they didn't go in peace. The sectarian differences are so complex, the clans, the religious dedication so visceral that I could scarcely get into all the reasons why this welcoming parade didn't occur, but I can tell you this: we had no plan for what to do when it didn't. We entered into this WWI level of intractable progress which reminded me more of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine rather than the US and Japan (which I always felt was the model to follow here). And when I say we had "no plan" for what to do next that is because pounding them into submission (as we did the zealots of Imperial Japan) was never on the table. In truth, once we realized that the Iraqis were incapable of congealing into a unified stable democratic state we were left with three choices as I see it (and this applies to Afghanistan as well).
A.) Pound them into utter submission, write their Constitution for them and install our own MacArthur style transition government.
B.) Leave.
C.) Engage in a piece-meal back and forth combat mission in which we see territory gained and then given back, in essence "hanging around" until the Iraqis get their democratic act together.
Now which of those sounds like what we opted to do? The problem is there is not a single, read ZERO, functioning democratic government (as we understand democracy) operating within the 22 Arab states of the region. None. The Israelis have been waiting around for a legitimate Palestinian partner since 1948. That conflict is essentially the model we've been operating under - hit the insurgents like whack-a-moles every time they pop up while we wait for democratic Iraqis to step up. And what does the Malaki government do as its' first order of business? It excludes Sunnis. Now guess whether ISIS is Sunni or Shi'ite.
In contrast look at what happened when Israel dealt directly, in open war, with other belligerent state actors, I'm writing now of Egypt and Jordan. They fought, they won, terms were agreed to, and there hasn't been a flair up in 50 plus years.
So my retroactive suggestion to Bush and our civilian leadership is either allow for a MacArthur style transition, along with sane ROEs, or get the hell out. The current PoTUS likes to remind everyone "I was elected to end wars, not start them." Uh huh, right. Remind me again, which CIC authorized the "surge?" Which one promised to close GITMO (which I am not in favor of). Which president is now contemplating military action to stop ISIS and contributed militarily to Qaddafi's overthrow? To a lesser extent he is simply continuing the Bush policies. Hanging around playing whack-a-mole hoping some indigenous band of patriots steps up and takes the reigns. This is a slow bleed. And what did Israel get for showing restraint during the last fifty years of their slow bleed as they played whack-a-mole rather than committing to total war? A democratically elected HAMAS. We are following the same path and we are getting the same result.
Now let me back up for a second and add this final thought which occurred to me like a light bulb going off above my head the other day as I pulled up a map of the ISIS advance towards Baghdad. I was looking at this regional map and saying out loud their name, the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and something hit me. Let's set aside the fact that there would be rampant violence in the take over and subsequent imposition of Sharia law by ISIS or some similar group (and that's a big set aside, I know) and consider something. What happens if we (the West and especially the US) allowed an ISIS-like group to take over in the region and establish their caliphate? They would become a de facto nation-state, yes? A fundamentalist theocracy state like Iran. The same goes for the Taliban take over when we pull out of Afghanistan (which I feel is inevitable at this point). It occurs to me that we are much better at dealing with, fighting and containing actual nation states than we are insurgents embedded among the civilian population. They would suddenly have real borders to defend, oil reserves to protect, and administration buildings they wouldn't want bombed. In other words, we know exactly where to find the Iranian leadership if they chose to attack us. We could crush them in short order, much like Israel did to Jordan. Now the experts will tell you that it is unacceptable to allow the establishment of a nation state from which Al Qaeda and her affiliates could use as safe harbor to attack us from. But by that reasoning we must invade Saudi Arabia, right? 9/11 was funded and carried out by Saudis. At least in this scenario ISIS would offer up a bevy of rich targets - much like Iran - to US bombers if they did attempt to carry out a strike against us or harbor those whom did. We'd know where they were, when they met, who was in charge, how to disable them - they would suffer every exposure other nation states do. They would cease to be this deadly enemy mixed within the population that came out of nowhere, retreated, and then came back again. ISIS would suddenly have real, tangible ground and assets to lose, like Iran.
Look, it's just a thought. I was trying to envision a unique solution to this morbidly complex problem. I'm sure a half dozen Mid East analysts could blow security risk holes in the theory, but then again, they're the same ones who predicted the orange arm bands hugging us and handing over bottles of Vat 69.
Friday, June 13, 2014
A request...
We are rapidly coming up to the half-way point of 2014, and we have barely reached 20 posts. At this rate, we'll finish the year with less than a hundred posts... our worst showing ever.
F Ryan is a prolific texter... I can count on at least three or four multi-page texts from him a week. I know, in the past, he has been upset (at best) or hurt (at worst) that I do not respond to his texts. I simply hate texting. If we are going to communicate with the written word, at least allow me a real keyboard, a comfortable chair and some background music to type by. Do not force me to stab at a tiny screen on my phone, while hunched over a pit stand hoping the bums on the catwalk aren't snapping 8'x10' glossy images to send down to my managers showing how much "work" I'm doing.
I just got done listening to Josh Waitzkin (of Searching for Bobby Fischer fame) in a podcast, and he talks about his work outside of chess and martial arts... and it is focused on the learning processes we all follow (or choose not to follow) and how they effect our creativity in our daily lives.
I can tell you now that I am less of a "man" since we have stopped "Bunding"... and as humorous as that may sound, it is undeniably true. Posting here on the Bund isn't simply "writing"... it is a creative and intellectual process that I think well and truly shaped my mind over the course of the last 10 years (including the mail list years, of course). The creative process isn't simply a tool, nor is it inherently available to anyone that wants it, whenever it is convenient. It is a process that requires effort and discipline, and returns many times its initial cost. If you doubt me, then ask Jambo... he can back me up.
Let's resurrect the Bund. Let's all work to make the time to voice our thoughts here. This is something I miss, and it (meaning YOU GUYS) challenges me to get better at it every time I post.
What say you?
F Ryan is a prolific texter... I can count on at least three or four multi-page texts from him a week. I know, in the past, he has been upset (at best) or hurt (at worst) that I do not respond to his texts. I simply hate texting. If we are going to communicate with the written word, at least allow me a real keyboard, a comfortable chair and some background music to type by. Do not force me to stab at a tiny screen on my phone, while hunched over a pit stand hoping the bums on the catwalk aren't snapping 8'x10' glossy images to send down to my managers showing how much "work" I'm doing.
I just got done listening to Josh Waitzkin (of Searching for Bobby Fischer fame) in a podcast, and he talks about his work outside of chess and martial arts... and it is focused on the learning processes we all follow (or choose not to follow) and how they effect our creativity in our daily lives.
I can tell you now that I am less of a "man" since we have stopped "Bunding"... and as humorous as that may sound, it is undeniably true. Posting here on the Bund isn't simply "writing"... it is a creative and intellectual process that I think well and truly shaped my mind over the course of the last 10 years (including the mail list years, of course). The creative process isn't simply a tool, nor is it inherently available to anyone that wants it, whenever it is convenient. It is a process that requires effort and discipline, and returns many times its initial cost. If you doubt me, then ask Jambo... he can back me up.
Let's resurrect the Bund. Let's all work to make the time to voice our thoughts here. This is something I miss, and it (meaning YOU GUYS) challenges me to get better at it every time I post.
What say you?
Thursday, June 12, 2014
I am shocked...
Damn near driven speechless, in fact.
A few tangents first, before my main point:
1) Afghanistan. You are correct, I did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. As you said, I was a younger, far more naive man then. A regime that openly assisted the people that attacked the US on 9/11/01 was a clear and present danger in my eyes.
However, as you so eloquently pointed out, that was a flawed position to take. No end-game strategy was ever presented to the "People" of these United States, no clear and well-defined "grand strategy" was ever laid out to "We the People" in regards to how the conflict would be conducted, and what the conditions for a declared "victory" wold be.
How many nations, before and after 9/11, were attacked by terrorists (Islamic or otherwise) and have NOT invaded and toppled recognized sovereign national governments? ALL of them, I'd say. We did it to two of them, damn near unilaterally.
2) My greatest degree of utter surprise stems from F Ryan's confession that he "doesn't know" what the right thing to do would or should have been. This leads me to think that he has come to the conclusion that what was done was not the right course of action to be taken. Declaring that the moon was made of green cheese, and that he routinely goes there to get some for his pizza night with the boys could hardly have raised my eyebrows any higher.
However... it shocks me even more that we are in nearly total agreement.
I wasn't right in 2001, and I wasn't right in 2003... at least not for the right reasons. Our government should be operating under the limitations of the powers enumerated within the Constitution, but it is not. It hasn't for quite some time. It is only in the last year that I have really begun to see just how far outside the Constitution this government of ours is operating.
I don't care what letter is behind the politician's name at the booth, no one running in any national election, for any office, is going to do one single thing that will reduce the size and scope of government. No one one the Republican side, and no one on the Democrat side. No one. Not one.
That said, I have taken to thinking that the best course of action for me (I advocate this for no one else, mind you) is that I participate in the Federal government system at the absolute minimum level of participation allowed to me by law.
I'll pay my taxes. I'll abide by Federal laws, as long as they do not contradict my conscience or my morals. I will do nothing else. I will not vote in the coming Federal elections in November. I will not support, in my words, deeds or personal wealth, anyone running for Federal office. I will limit my franchise participation to the State, County and Municipal level, where I feel I can actually benefit from and actually measure the impact of my vote and voice. That is what I feel I can do, so that is what I will do.
Now, to my final main point:
"So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page."
Here, we are in complete disagreement.
The mess we see the region in right now cannot be blamed on anything if it cannot be blamed on the manner in which we, the United States of America, have conducted ourselves and our foreign policy over the last 70 years. Of course ethnic, religious and demographic facets must be factored in... but if US national security is at risk in the region (and from the region), then it is our policies and actions that have brought it about.
Doing nothing, especially now, is the only course of corrective action that I can see working at all. Continuing our present course, we do nothing with any certainty EXCEPT create another generation of men and women who blame the US (and by extension every American citizen, involved or not) for every single woe in their lives. Doing nothing forces the region, and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, to take responsibility for their own needs. That is what the men who signed the Declaration of Independence did... they accepted responsibility for their respective States' needs, solely and totally, because no one else should or could be responsible for those needs. We chose the path of self determination, and it has worked here. France chose the path of self determination. The UK, Germany, Japan, the West in general... we found our feet on that path and have stayed there since. You cannot force someone onto that path.
By doing nothing, we can secure our own freedoms (from ourselves, it seems... what greater threat is there right now to our personal freedoms than our own government?) and voluntarily assist those that ask us, if the needs should arise. We can provide the example that we once were, and can be again... that individual freedom creates a free country. The country does not create individual freedom. If we are not a nation of free men and women, then we are no more fit to dictate policy or governmental structure than Saddam Hussein was... and I am not picking an extreme here simply for hyperbole sake. Saddam dictated to 25 million people how they would conduct their lives, and we came and removed him, and then dictated how and when they would pick a replacement. In a fundamental manner... where is the difference?
We do not lose... we win. We steal not only the means by which radicals and terrorists justify their butchery... we remove a HUGE portion of the means by which they produce their terror and butchery. By removing the onus we have placed on ourselves as the "protector of the world" we can once again focus on making this nation a place were everyone wants to be. A place where we feed, clothe, employ, house, educate, and incorporate any and all that are willing to come and participate in the great American dream. We once again become the great "melting pot" that incorporates each and every free individual into a functional, safe and prosperous society.
We are no more safe NOW then we were on 9/10/01. I really and truly feel that is true. Saddam cannot attack us. bin Laden cannot attack us. They are dead and gone. We are NOT safer because of that, though.
Even worse, I fear we are less free than we were on 9/10/01... and what is more tragic than that? How do we justify the deaths of so many thousands of Americans in both theaters and around the world, when no honest and rational American can say we are even as "free" now as we were fourteen years ago?
THAT is a tragedy... and a loss... but it isn't because of terror or radical extremism. That is our own fault.
A few tangents first, before my main point:
1) Afghanistan. You are correct, I did not oppose the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. As you said, I was a younger, far more naive man then. A regime that openly assisted the people that attacked the US on 9/11/01 was a clear and present danger in my eyes.
However, as you so eloquently pointed out, that was a flawed position to take. No end-game strategy was ever presented to the "People" of these United States, no clear and well-defined "grand strategy" was ever laid out to "We the People" in regards to how the conflict would be conducted, and what the conditions for a declared "victory" wold be.
How many nations, before and after 9/11, were attacked by terrorists (Islamic or otherwise) and have NOT invaded and toppled recognized sovereign national governments? ALL of them, I'd say. We did it to two of them, damn near unilaterally.
2) My greatest degree of utter surprise stems from F Ryan's confession that he "doesn't know" what the right thing to do would or should have been. This leads me to think that he has come to the conclusion that what was done was not the right course of action to be taken. Declaring that the moon was made of green cheese, and that he routinely goes there to get some for his pizza night with the boys could hardly have raised my eyebrows any higher.
However... it shocks me even more that we are in nearly total agreement.
I wasn't right in 2001, and I wasn't right in 2003... at least not for the right reasons. Our government should be operating under the limitations of the powers enumerated within the Constitution, but it is not. It hasn't for quite some time. It is only in the last year that I have really begun to see just how far outside the Constitution this government of ours is operating.
I don't care what letter is behind the politician's name at the booth, no one running in any national election, for any office, is going to do one single thing that will reduce the size and scope of government. No one one the Republican side, and no one on the Democrat side. No one. Not one.
That said, I have taken to thinking that the best course of action for me (I advocate this for no one else, mind you) is that I participate in the Federal government system at the absolute minimum level of participation allowed to me by law.
I'll pay my taxes. I'll abide by Federal laws, as long as they do not contradict my conscience or my morals. I will do nothing else. I will not vote in the coming Federal elections in November. I will not support, in my words, deeds or personal wealth, anyone running for Federal office. I will limit my franchise participation to the State, County and Municipal level, where I feel I can actually benefit from and actually measure the impact of my vote and voice. That is what I feel I can do, so that is what I will do.
Now, to my final main point:
"So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page."
Here, we are in complete disagreement.
The mess we see the region in right now cannot be blamed on anything if it cannot be blamed on the manner in which we, the United States of America, have conducted ourselves and our foreign policy over the last 70 years. Of course ethnic, religious and demographic facets must be factored in... but if US national security is at risk in the region (and from the region), then it is our policies and actions that have brought it about.
Doing nothing, especially now, is the only course of corrective action that I can see working at all. Continuing our present course, we do nothing with any certainty EXCEPT create another generation of men and women who blame the US (and by extension every American citizen, involved or not) for every single woe in their lives. Doing nothing forces the region, and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, to take responsibility for their own needs. That is what the men who signed the Declaration of Independence did... they accepted responsibility for their respective States' needs, solely and totally, because no one else should or could be responsible for those needs. We chose the path of self determination, and it has worked here. France chose the path of self determination. The UK, Germany, Japan, the West in general... we found our feet on that path and have stayed there since. You cannot force someone onto that path.
By doing nothing, we can secure our own freedoms (from ourselves, it seems... what greater threat is there right now to our personal freedoms than our own government?) and voluntarily assist those that ask us, if the needs should arise. We can provide the example that we once were, and can be again... that individual freedom creates a free country. The country does not create individual freedom. If we are not a nation of free men and women, then we are no more fit to dictate policy or governmental structure than Saddam Hussein was... and I am not picking an extreme here simply for hyperbole sake. Saddam dictated to 25 million people how they would conduct their lives, and we came and removed him, and then dictated how and when they would pick a replacement. In a fundamental manner... where is the difference?
We do not lose... we win. We steal not only the means by which radicals and terrorists justify their butchery... we remove a HUGE portion of the means by which they produce their terror and butchery. By removing the onus we have placed on ourselves as the "protector of the world" we can once again focus on making this nation a place were everyone wants to be. A place where we feed, clothe, employ, house, educate, and incorporate any and all that are willing to come and participate in the great American dream. We once again become the great "melting pot" that incorporates each and every free individual into a functional, safe and prosperous society.
We are no more safe NOW then we were on 9/10/01. I really and truly feel that is true. Saddam cannot attack us. bin Laden cannot attack us. They are dead and gone. We are NOT safer because of that, though.
Even worse, I fear we are less free than we were on 9/10/01... and what is more tragic than that? How do we justify the deaths of so many thousands of Americans in both theaters and around the world, when no honest and rational American can say we are even as "free" now as we were fourteen years ago?
THAT is a tragedy... and a loss... but it isn't because of terror or radical extremism. That is our own fault.
This is going to leave a mark....
So testy about text messages at the end there. Take it easy sweetheart, hike up that dress and lets go for a walk down memory lane.
I supported the Iraq invasion, loudly and often. And to boil it down I did so for two reasons. One, in the wake of 9/11 I felt the Jihadist enemy was now willing and capable of force projection here at home. Now I'm sure some CIA analysts somewhere at the time knew this already, but as a 20-something American citizen not privy to any Intel loop, it was the stark images of the towers collapsing that woke me to this realization. And given we now had an Islamic Pearl Harbor I felt it was not just possible, but likely, that Saddam either had or would eventually succeed (sooner rather than later) in his quest for nuclear weapons, and that he would in all likelihood strike the US (his primary nemesis) via handing those nukes off to terrorists for deployment on US soil. That was my primary rationale. Saddam with nukes in the post 9/11 era was unacceptable, he'd proven to be a madman that desired our fall, so we could no longer sit by as this guy rattled his saber again and again.
The secondary reason I supported invading Iraq was more general - the "drain the swamp" theory. I thought establishing a beach head of democracy in Iraq would cause liberty to spread in the Middle East. We would draw all the wanna-be jihadists into a nation filled with US Marines (as opposed to waiting for them to come here and fighting them on main street); and that after their demise this beach head could grow. As you might remember Bush said in one of his SoTU addresses, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." It worked in a nation of imperial zealots, via Japan, and it was even working on economic fronts in China (they are now feeding all 1.3 billion for the first time in their history). I fully believed in would work in Iraq.
So you have my two-fold reasons. Here was the two-fold mistake in that rationale:
First, we did not commit to total war as we did with Imperial Japan. I assumed we would - I was wrong. Now that sentiment may not feel accurate to any Marine taking fire at this moment, and understandably so, but what I mean is there wasn't a WWII mind set in operation. The rules of engagement, the home front sacrifice, even the unwillingness to name our enemy (always careful to parse words on Islam)... the PC nature of our war commitment cut the tendon of our right foot before we even started marching. In retrospect I believe our officials and the American populous had the stomach to start a war, but not the stomach to win at any cost, as was the case with the Greatest Generation. The problem is you don't "end" wars, you win or lose them, and we are a nation of people who want to know when the war will end, not how the war will be won. To sum this up as succinctly as possible - does anyone believe we would have the fortitude to deploy one, let alone two nuclear weapons if it meant a swift and sure success? No chance. Unfortunately our enemy does not have such commitment issues.
Second flaw... I'll start with Germany, because it's easier. The Marshall plan and the post WWII rebuilding of Germany into a vibrant, pluralistic, democratic society did not happen because the WWII generation had some secret power or formula. It happened because before Hitler the German people were a vibrant, pluralistic, open society. In other words, once we removed the scourge of Nazism the German people were capable of building this society because they knew what it looked like. The dominant religious culture of Iraq, and the Near East in general, has not progressed past the 7th century. In fact, forget a Jeffersonian democracy, they fully reject a Platoistic Democracy (or republic, as the case may be). They are unwilling to accept the gift of freedom, whether it comes from America or God. Even within the Iraqi constitution if you are Jewish you can never become an Iraqi citizen - and those are the "good guys", not ISIS. So to sum up the second flaw in my rationale - I underestimated how ill prepared and unwilling Iraqis would be to embrace freedom. Yes, thousands of them cast their vote with the inked blue thumb print, I get that. But they must be willing to fight and die for that ink, especially when their chief military patron won't even send a predator drone on a scraifing run right now. The experiment of an external "imposition" of freedom on a society from which it was not birthed naturally seems to be spiraling into a cataclysmic failure. I know Titus called that from the beginning. For my part I simply could not wrap my head around such a thing in 2003 - that freedom would not be embraced and that the Iraqis could not grasp that soldiering was about more than a steady paycheck. But then again I was raised in the West. The concept of dying for liberty here is as American, as well, apple pie.
Now here's the problem you're going to have Titus - if you accept my two points of flawed reasoning as accurate, then you must come to the conclusion that the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake as well. Everything I wrote above can be applied to Afghanistan, and there can be no doubt of the Taliban's resurgence once we fully pull out this year. Hell, we just gave them back five of their commanders to help smooth that transition. And I don't remember you opposing the Afghan invasion.
Beyond that the question quickly becomes, "then what should we have done as a response to 9/11?" I don't know, fully anyway. I do know that going in and wiping out Al Qaeda, getting Bin Laden, and then getting the hell out appeals to me at the moment.
But the bigger issue seems to be the dark choice we - as Westerners - must make regarding the Mid East. Whether it's Egypt, Iraq, or Iran the peoples of that region seem capable of only two forms of government: A) a strong man, whom keeps jihadists at bay but in our support we betray our own principles (and that's if he doesn't turn on us, like Saddam); or B) a fundamentalist Islamic state which combines a 7th century mentality with 21st century weaponry and a white hot hate for America.
I'm being sincere in my frustration here - if supporting a strong man is untenable, and the region is impervious to external impositions of freedom, what to do? I would suggest that we do nothing, and when either form of government raises an ugly hand to strike at us we pummel them into fused glass. But it would seem we (as represented in our civilian leadership, in both parties) don't have the stomach for that either! So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page.
I supported the Iraq invasion, loudly and often. And to boil it down I did so for two reasons. One, in the wake of 9/11 I felt the Jihadist enemy was now willing and capable of force projection here at home. Now I'm sure some CIA analysts somewhere at the time knew this already, but as a 20-something American citizen not privy to any Intel loop, it was the stark images of the towers collapsing that woke me to this realization. And given we now had an Islamic Pearl Harbor I felt it was not just possible, but likely, that Saddam either had or would eventually succeed (sooner rather than later) in his quest for nuclear weapons, and that he would in all likelihood strike the US (his primary nemesis) via handing those nukes off to terrorists for deployment on US soil. That was my primary rationale. Saddam with nukes in the post 9/11 era was unacceptable, he'd proven to be a madman that desired our fall, so we could no longer sit by as this guy rattled his saber again and again.
The secondary reason I supported invading Iraq was more general - the "drain the swamp" theory. I thought establishing a beach head of democracy in Iraq would cause liberty to spread in the Middle East. We would draw all the wanna-be jihadists into a nation filled with US Marines (as opposed to waiting for them to come here and fighting them on main street); and that after their demise this beach head could grow. As you might remember Bush said in one of his SoTU addresses, "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." It worked in a nation of imperial zealots, via Japan, and it was even working on economic fronts in China (they are now feeding all 1.3 billion for the first time in their history). I fully believed in would work in Iraq.
So you have my two-fold reasons. Here was the two-fold mistake in that rationale:
First, we did not commit to total war as we did with Imperial Japan. I assumed we would - I was wrong. Now that sentiment may not feel accurate to any Marine taking fire at this moment, and understandably so, but what I mean is there wasn't a WWII mind set in operation. The rules of engagement, the home front sacrifice, even the unwillingness to name our enemy (always careful to parse words on Islam)... the PC nature of our war commitment cut the tendon of our right foot before we even started marching. In retrospect I believe our officials and the American populous had the stomach to start a war, but not the stomach to win at any cost, as was the case with the Greatest Generation. The problem is you don't "end" wars, you win or lose them, and we are a nation of people who want to know when the war will end, not how the war will be won. To sum this up as succinctly as possible - does anyone believe we would have the fortitude to deploy one, let alone two nuclear weapons if it meant a swift and sure success? No chance. Unfortunately our enemy does not have such commitment issues.
Second flaw... I'll start with Germany, because it's easier. The Marshall plan and the post WWII rebuilding of Germany into a vibrant, pluralistic, democratic society did not happen because the WWII generation had some secret power or formula. It happened because before Hitler the German people were a vibrant, pluralistic, open society. In other words, once we removed the scourge of Nazism the German people were capable of building this society because they knew what it looked like. The dominant religious culture of Iraq, and the Near East in general, has not progressed past the 7th century. In fact, forget a Jeffersonian democracy, they fully reject a Platoistic Democracy (or republic, as the case may be). They are unwilling to accept the gift of freedom, whether it comes from America or God. Even within the Iraqi constitution if you are Jewish you can never become an Iraqi citizen - and those are the "good guys", not ISIS. So to sum up the second flaw in my rationale - I underestimated how ill prepared and unwilling Iraqis would be to embrace freedom. Yes, thousands of them cast their vote with the inked blue thumb print, I get that. But they must be willing to fight and die for that ink, especially when their chief military patron won't even send a predator drone on a scraifing run right now. The experiment of an external "imposition" of freedom on a society from which it was not birthed naturally seems to be spiraling into a cataclysmic failure. I know Titus called that from the beginning. For my part I simply could not wrap my head around such a thing in 2003 - that freedom would not be embraced and that the Iraqis could not grasp that soldiering was about more than a steady paycheck. But then again I was raised in the West. The concept of dying for liberty here is as American, as well, apple pie.
Now here's the problem you're going to have Titus - if you accept my two points of flawed reasoning as accurate, then you must come to the conclusion that the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake as well. Everything I wrote above can be applied to Afghanistan, and there can be no doubt of the Taliban's resurgence once we fully pull out this year. Hell, we just gave them back five of their commanders to help smooth that transition. And I don't remember you opposing the Afghan invasion.
Beyond that the question quickly becomes, "then what should we have done as a response to 9/11?" I don't know, fully anyway. I do know that going in and wiping out Al Qaeda, getting Bin Laden, and then getting the hell out appeals to me at the moment.
But the bigger issue seems to be the dark choice we - as Westerners - must make regarding the Mid East. Whether it's Egypt, Iraq, or Iran the peoples of that region seem capable of only two forms of government: A) a strong man, whom keeps jihadists at bay but in our support we betray our own principles (and that's if he doesn't turn on us, like Saddam); or B) a fundamentalist Islamic state which combines a 7th century mentality with 21st century weaponry and a white hot hate for America.
I'm being sincere in my frustration here - if supporting a strong man is untenable, and the region is impervious to external impositions of freedom, what to do? I would suggest that we do nothing, and when either form of government raises an ugly hand to strike at us we pummel them into fused glass. But it would seem we (as represented in our civilian leadership, in both parties) don't have the stomach for that either! So then what happens? Our enemy is not going away and unlike us they are fully committed.
I'll tell you what happens - we lose, turn the page.
I'm going to answer a question with a question...
F. Ryan asks: "Can you imagine being an OIF veteran watching Mosul fall as ISIS closes in on Baghdad?"
My response: Did we, any of us, actually think it was going to turn out any differently?
Let's look at that tired old chestnut of an argument just one more time... and we can forget all the tangential crap about WMDs and terror connections, because it has almost nothing to do with the actual question being raised... and that argument is "Should we have gone into Iraq in 2003 in the first place?"
Knowing what we do about American and Western history over the last fifty years, can we honestly say that the US, or any Western nation, had the fortitude and determination to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad AND replace it with a functioning system of government before the money and public support ran out? I don't care who is in office, either... Republican or Democrat... no one was going to command the sort of long term support it would have taken to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people enough to establish a functional democratically elected government in Baghdad. Period, end of story.
I'm sorry, but I feel more and more vindicated about my concerns that I voiced all the way back in 2003 and since.Ten plus years wasn't enough to do it, and thousands of American lives wasn't enough, and two million civilian deaths wasn't enough... so what would it have taken? Would ANY of it have been worth it at any time?
I want an answer here, by the way... not in a text.
My response: Did we, any of us, actually think it was going to turn out any differently?
Let's look at that tired old chestnut of an argument just one more time... and we can forget all the tangential crap about WMDs and terror connections, because it has almost nothing to do with the actual question being raised... and that argument is "Should we have gone into Iraq in 2003 in the first place?"
Knowing what we do about American and Western history over the last fifty years, can we honestly say that the US, or any Western nation, had the fortitude and determination to overthrow the Hussein regime in Baghdad AND replace it with a functioning system of government before the money and public support ran out? I don't care who is in office, either... Republican or Democrat... no one was going to command the sort of long term support it would have taken to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people enough to establish a functional democratically elected government in Baghdad. Period, end of story.
I'm sorry, but I feel more and more vindicated about my concerns that I voiced all the way back in 2003 and since.Ten plus years wasn't enough to do it, and thousands of American lives wasn't enough, and two million civilian deaths wasn't enough... so what would it have taken? Would ANY of it have been worth it at any time?
I want an answer here, by the way... not in a text.
Friday, February 7, 2014
"It is not because things are difficult that we hesitate to do them..."
"... it is because we hesitate to do them that things are difficult." Seneca, 1st Century AD
I heard a statistic today on the way home from work that staggered me. Floored me. Amazed is too small a word.
I was listening to a show on the radio that was discussing the latest news concerning the Pittsburgh Independent School District and its $40 million dollar grant from the Gates Foundation. You can read the article and follow-up on the story at your leisure, but I am going to continue on the assumption that you know the meat and potatoes of the piece.
In a nutshell, the discussion was on the present failings of education in PA specifically, and the entire US in general, since the turn of the century (i.e. the Bush Administration). The subjects were many and quite varied, but the part that prompted this post was simply this:
Homeschooling is, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, growing at an absolutely AMAZING rate. In the 2007-08 school year, 1.9% of all students in PA were being homeschooled. In 2011-12, that percentage had reached 5.1%... nearly 60,000 students between the ages of 5 years and 18 years were outside of the public education's "brick-and-mortar" system. In that same 2011-12 year (the last I have hard data for), that same 5.1% of PA students being "home schooled" had more than 91.2% of its membership make the top standardized testing scores acheived by ANY students in the entire State!!!! These kids are blowing the rest of the "brick-and-mortar" system kids out of the water, if the scores they are putting up are any indication. (source HERE)
Now, think back... it isn't all that long ago that "home schooling" was what religious zealots and hippies did. This was NOT mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination. Now, it is something I am considering nearly each and every day that my 11-year-old continues to go to the "brick-and-mortar" system.
More staggering than all of that though...
(drum roll)
Imagine the numbers continuing to climb, both here in PA and nationally. When the numbers near (and possibly surpass) 25% of all students... the education system in America can no longer function as it is now. The system breaks down completely. The Federal money that goes to the "brick-and-mortar" institutions no longer is enough to fund what must become a greater and more expensive effort each and every year, thus driving more and more parents to take on the duties themselves, and (hopefully) driving the homeschool test scores up and up in comparison to those of the standard systems.
What does that mean?
I really don't know... but the possibilities are fascinating to ponder, aren't they?
I heard a statistic today on the way home from work that staggered me. Floored me. Amazed is too small a word.
I was listening to a show on the radio that was discussing the latest news concerning the Pittsburgh Independent School District and its $40 million dollar grant from the Gates Foundation. You can read the article and follow-up on the story at your leisure, but I am going to continue on the assumption that you know the meat and potatoes of the piece.
In a nutshell, the discussion was on the present failings of education in PA specifically, and the entire US in general, since the turn of the century (i.e. the Bush Administration). The subjects were many and quite varied, but the part that prompted this post was simply this:
Homeschooling is, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, growing at an absolutely AMAZING rate. In the 2007-08 school year, 1.9% of all students in PA were being homeschooled. In 2011-12, that percentage had reached 5.1%... nearly 60,000 students between the ages of 5 years and 18 years were outside of the public education's "brick-and-mortar" system. In that same 2011-12 year (the last I have hard data for), that same 5.1% of PA students being "home schooled" had more than 91.2% of its membership make the top standardized testing scores acheived by ANY students in the entire State!!!! These kids are blowing the rest of the "brick-and-mortar" system kids out of the water, if the scores they are putting up are any indication. (source HERE)
Now, think back... it isn't all that long ago that "home schooling" was what religious zealots and hippies did. This was NOT mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination. Now, it is something I am considering nearly each and every day that my 11-year-old continues to go to the "brick-and-mortar" system.
More staggering than all of that though...
(drum roll)
Imagine the numbers continuing to climb, both here in PA and nationally. When the numbers near (and possibly surpass) 25% of all students... the education system in America can no longer function as it is now. The system breaks down completely. The Federal money that goes to the "brick-and-mortar" institutions no longer is enough to fund what must become a greater and more expensive effort each and every year, thus driving more and more parents to take on the duties themselves, and (hopefully) driving the homeschool test scores up and up in comparison to those of the standard systems.
What does that mean?
I really don't know... but the possibilities are fascinating to ponder, aren't they?
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
I thought I was done, but...
I can't get this Snowden thing off my mind lately. Now, granted... it isn't Snowden so much as it is our own government willingly pushing aside our individual and collective rights to better "protect" us from real or imagined harm... but I'll continue to call it the "Snowden thing" for my own personal convenience.
In one of F Ryan's previous posts, he wrote:
" I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?"
When I said I didn't know the answer to questions like this, and that I frankly didn't care, either... it was a legitimate response and not simply a lazy answer or an attempt to piss off F Ryan (which it did...).
The long version is that the details of "why" don't matter to me because I am more and more convinced that far too much has been sacrificed in this country to the altar of "security". If something has to be lost in our continuing national quest for a world without fear, violence or hatred... I'll keep the personal freedoms and liberties that made us what we are today and risk losing the "edge" in our trade war with China, or Germany, or Israel, or (even) a perceived threat from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Africa, et al. If the fundamental principals that made this nation great don't matter anymore, then what do I care about possible threats from Islamabad or Tehran? Our own government says that I am 7 times more likely to be killed by a local policeman than I am a terrorist, and tens of thousands of times more likely to die in an accidental plane crash than in a terrorist-caused plane crash... but it is an absolute FACT that every text, email, phone call, internet search, video download, et al, is being monitored and stored for future reference to help keep me even safer than I am now.
Even my short answer... the "pat" answer that F Ryan seemed to have wanted... is valid, I think: I am forced to assume that the "whistle-blower" info that should have been leaked was inseparably wrapped up with the "legitimately secret" info that should not have been leaked. That actually being the case, I still think it was the right thing to do. If the left hand is stealing flour so the right hand can make bread for the hungry, is the bread not still ill-gotten? Is the baker not still a thief?
And yes, of course I see the parallel here. Snowden broke the law. He did it with intent and full knowledge that what he was doing was illegal. My point all along is that what he did was illegal, but not wrong. What he did does not fix what was wrong, and it might very well make things worse in the short term... I do not argue that possibility at all.
My question now becomes:
Is this nation, as the bastion of freedom and personal liberty in the world, better today because of what he did, or is it not? I'm not asking if there was another alternative path that could have been followed... there always is, when looking back through hindsight. I'm asking if the country (and, frankly, the world) is better off NOW than it was BEFORE Snowden released what he did.
I contend that it is better off now than it was. He did the right thing.
In one of F Ryan's previous posts, he wrote:
" I can not separate the man into EITHER a genuine whistle blower OR a traitor. He is absolutely both. The former for revealing domestic abuses, the latter for revealing legitimate foreign operations. So again I ask this point blank - why did he collect and leak the details of the NSA's legitimate foreign operations? The people targeted in Pakistan (or even Merkel for that matter, if you want to be technical), are not protected by the 4th Amendment. The NSA committed no abuse and certainly no crime in going after those intercepts. So why'd he leak it?"
When I said I didn't know the answer to questions like this, and that I frankly didn't care, either... it was a legitimate response and not simply a lazy answer or an attempt to piss off F Ryan (which it did...).
The long version is that the details of "why" don't matter to me because I am more and more convinced that far too much has been sacrificed in this country to the altar of "security". If something has to be lost in our continuing national quest for a world without fear, violence or hatred... I'll keep the personal freedoms and liberties that made us what we are today and risk losing the "edge" in our trade war with China, or Germany, or Israel, or (even) a perceived threat from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Africa, et al. If the fundamental principals that made this nation great don't matter anymore, then what do I care about possible threats from Islamabad or Tehran? Our own government says that I am 7 times more likely to be killed by a local policeman than I am a terrorist, and tens of thousands of times more likely to die in an accidental plane crash than in a terrorist-caused plane crash... but it is an absolute FACT that every text, email, phone call, internet search, video download, et al, is being monitored and stored for future reference to help keep me even safer than I am now.
Even my short answer... the "pat" answer that F Ryan seemed to have wanted... is valid, I think: I am forced to assume that the "whistle-blower" info that should have been leaked was inseparably wrapped up with the "legitimately secret" info that should not have been leaked. That actually being the case, I still think it was the right thing to do. If the left hand is stealing flour so the right hand can make bread for the hungry, is the bread not still ill-gotten? Is the baker not still a thief?
And yes, of course I see the parallel here. Snowden broke the law. He did it with intent and full knowledge that what he was doing was illegal. My point all along is that what he did was illegal, but not wrong. What he did does not fix what was wrong, and it might very well make things worse in the short term... I do not argue that possibility at all.
My question now becomes:
Is this nation, as the bastion of freedom and personal liberty in the world, better today because of what he did, or is it not? I'm not asking if there was another alternative path that could have been followed... there always is, when looking back through hindsight. I'm asking if the country (and, frankly, the world) is better off NOW than it was BEFORE Snowden released what he did.
I contend that it is better off now than it was. He did the right thing.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The perks of a northern Wisconsin childhood...
So, it's Wednesday. I'm off. I'd like to sleep in, but that simply doesn't happen here at the Chateau de Lieteau, so it was up and at 'em at 6 AM. One of the Wednesday chores is garbage, so I bundle up and drag the near unimaginable amount of trash to the street.
Now, its cold. Damn cold. I mean... damn cold. Snot-freezing cold (clue)... squeeky-snow-cold (clue)... and after about four minutes outside, eyelash-freezing-because-your-eyes-want-to-tear cold. As I walk in and take off my jacket, my son asks "How cold is it outside?"
"I'd guess about seven below." I answer confidently.
Jake, being Jake, runs to go check the digital thermometer to see if my "guess" was close. The result?
-6.7 degrees F
"How did you know how cold it was if you didn't go in the kitchen?" Jake asks.
I then tell him about what it was like waiting for the bus as a child and hearing the snow "squeek" beneath my boots. And about stepping onto the ice to check tip-ups and feeling your snot freeze solid with the first breath as opposed to the twentieth breath. Or about scraping the melt off a windshield and feeling your eyelashes sticking together due to my tears freezing them together. THAT is the almost inherent knowledge gained from an upbringing that included frigid winds of the lake, 40 inch snowfalls in a single night of snow, double-digit wind chill factors that could turn "uncomfortable" into "dangerous" in minutes.
My explanation may not have been as impressive as I had hoped, but it's good to know I can still see a bit of the "hunyock" youth showing in me, even now.
Now, its cold. Damn cold. I mean... damn cold. Snot-freezing cold (clue)... squeeky-snow-cold (clue)... and after about four minutes outside, eyelash-freezing-because-your-eyes-want-to-tear cold. As I walk in and take off my jacket, my son asks "How cold is it outside?"
"I'd guess about seven below." I answer confidently.
Jake, being Jake, runs to go check the digital thermometer to see if my "guess" was close. The result?
-6.7 degrees F
"How did you know how cold it was if you didn't go in the kitchen?" Jake asks.
I then tell him about what it was like waiting for the bus as a child and hearing the snow "squeek" beneath my boots. And about stepping onto the ice to check tip-ups and feeling your snot freeze solid with the first breath as opposed to the twentieth breath. Or about scraping the melt off a windshield and feeling your eyelashes sticking together due to my tears freezing them together. THAT is the almost inherent knowledge gained from an upbringing that included frigid winds of the lake, 40 inch snowfalls in a single night of snow, double-digit wind chill factors that could turn "uncomfortable" into "dangerous" in minutes.
My explanation may not have been as impressive as I had hoped, but it's good to know I can still see a bit of the "hunyock" youth showing in me, even now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
