Funny, but this smacks of exactly the kind of semantics-based argument that you are repeatedly beating me up over... but I see your point. In fact, it ties in rather nicely with a point I wanted to bring up.
To your point... does the fact that so many are avoiding using the term in Hasan's case mean that the "politically correct" police are subverting and marginalizing a greater threat than simply an unbalanced Army officer with a religious agenda and a gun?
There is the typical liberal hypocrisy at work, of course. No one hesitated to refer to Eric Rudolph (the Olympic Park Bomber) as a terrorist, even though no direct link to an outside organization or conspiracy could be made, based (seemingly) only on the fact that he was acting from an extremely radical Christian position (i.e. anti-abortion and a hatred of the "homosexual agenda"), while John Mohammed (the recently executed DC Sniper) was a "spree killer" and not a terrorist, even though he had specific and measurable ties to such "radical" groups as the Nation of Islam and at least twice voiced support and admiration of bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks.
In all these examples (and there are lots of them, unfortunately), murder and terror go hand-in-hand. Did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine High School shooters) employ terror in their rampage? Of course. Did Charles Whitman utilize terror as part of his murderous acts in 1966 on top of the University of Texas clock tower? Without question. On the other side of the coin, did Timothy McVeigh commit murder when he utilized "terrorism" in blowing up the Murrough Federal Building? Absolutely, as did anyone involved in the 9-11 attacks, the WTC bombing, or any act of suicide-murder in a Tel Aviv market or Belfast pub.
I don't feel the label we, as a society, place on an act to prosecute it in a court of law is all that important, as long as a mean approximation of justice is being meted out at the end of the process. The greater failing in regards to this latest example of terror/mass murder at Fort Hood is that we are failing to recognize where the mind-set for such an act is being generated, and that leads me to the point I wanted to make.
I heard Dick Durbin (D-IL) damn near apologize for the acts committed (allegedly) by Hasan at Ft Hood on the floor of the Senate yesterday, and it very nearly made me want to vomit. He was so obviously "tip-toeing" around the fact that the alleged murderer was a radical Muslim that he couldn't have done more to point it out if he openly used the terms himself. As the investigation goes deeper, it is becoming more and more obvious that the alleged murderer showed sign after sign that he was nearing a breaking point in his "struggle" (the root of the word jihad in Arabic) between his Islamic faith and his sense of duty to his country... yet no one thought to do anything about it. I find it very ironic that the portion of our Government that is so strongly advocating greater federal regulation and oversight of every facet of daily life in these United States is so hesitant to admit that someone should have acted on the fact that this man was exhibiting numerous signs of violence and anti-American sentiment as the months and years of his service went by, for the SOLE reason that they don't want to offend the less than 6% of the Armed Forces that claim Muslim beliefs or Middle Eastern heritage.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating the use of a new (or even the old) Alien and Sedition Acts, which was what was used to detain and inter Japanese, German and Italian Americans without charge or trial for as long as four years after 1942. I understand and fully believe that this was a gross travesty of justice and a crime perpetrated by the American government on its citizenry that has never been fully addressed.
My question is how best do we, as a nation (and especially our Armed Forces and security and law enforcement personnel), make sure that the elements of radical Islam do not have the means to commit any future acts of violence against the US domestically without impeding or suspending the rights of Muslim Americans? How do we best address the growing number of Muslims who hold the religious belief that the US is evil and must be destroyed? How do we deal with the religious belief that murder and terror are acceptable means to reach a religious goal? Most importantly, how do we do all this without violating the First Amendment?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
What is a "terrorist?"
First, "hear, hear" on your last.
As to the subject line ... this conversation, on a personal level, began on the phone with Jambo. It has become somewhat of a national discussion now, especially after Joe Lieberman's public statements. What to "call" Major Hasan has become a story within the story.
So I ask, by murdering 13 US soldiers and wounding 30 more did Hasan commit an act of terror? Jambo immediately declared that he was simply a "nut." A nut that snapped rather than a terrorist. And his initial reasoning was "he didn't use explosives." Now that may sound odd, but I think that a lot of people probably had that initial reaction. Terrorists plot in dark rooms together with temperamental explosive ingredients and a man watching the door, awaiting instructions from their terror masters just moments before Jack Bauer bursts in and clears the room with extreme prejudice. But is that so?
In other words, can there be a terrorist of one? Can there be a "self prompted" act of terrorism? Is it terrorism if Hasan was inspired by Al Qeda rather than having direct orders or even contact with such groups?
Let me put it another way - if an Irish Catholic detonates a bomb on Downey Street, and it is concluded that he has no other conspirators, never even met an IRA member, does MI-5 refer to the perpetrator as merely a "criminal", "nut" or would they opt for "terrorist", and "act of terrorism?"
Is poisoning a water supply to a controlled group (say a university, etc) is that not an act of terrorism? No "explosives" were employed.
Everyone knows McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, but is a sniper that assassinates abortion "doctors" (my own editorializing there by flanking that word with quotation marks), is he not a terrorist? If so then wasn't the recently executed DC sniper a terrorist?
Seriously, what separates a criminal act from an act of terrorism? (by the way, how many times will this post be flagged by one government agency or another given how oft I've used that word? Hey guys - we're on your side, I'm simply making a point, and one I'm sure you'd agree with .... big smile)
For help I went to the experts - I went about looking for the Webster's & Britannica definitions of the word "terrorist" (which is usually cited as "one committing an act of terror or terrorism", ya, thanks, real helpful) or "terrorism", but I came across perhaps the most useful source of all in this scenario - the official FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Now that last bit seems to be the necessary and common component among the various twists on the definition - violence with a political or social goal/gripe. So lets accept that portion as paramount in labeling each of the mentioned perpetrators above, shall we?
First, the Irish bomb maker - yep. The Downey Street location is a clear intent to coerce the government into changing political policy. That hits in all categories.
The abortion sniper - yep again. He is violently objecting to a social phenomena, clearly within the realm of terrorism. The same applies to the DC sniper - he had a cadre of written social and political gripes for which he was exacting "revenge", and "punishment."
The poisoned water? Only if it is accompanied by a list of political demands or grievances against the government or civilian population either before the poisoning or there after. So this could be yes or no depending on the intent behind the method.
And that brings us back to Hasan. He murdered with a hand gun, but as we've established the method is but a vehicle, be it explosives, poison or pistols it's all "unlawful use of force or violence" and is thus irrelevant. So, the real question in discerning whether this was an act of terror or not then becomes - what was his intent?
I will leave it to the capable professionals at the FBI to give a final, detailed answer, but let us go with what we know so far. He was wearing Islamic ceremonial garb during the murders. He handed out Korans the morning of the shooting. He screamed "Allah Akbar" as he fired the weapons and murdered the soldiers (all of that will become relevant in a moment). The target, the target wasn't a civilian population, nor individuals within his personal circle, but rather government employees at a government facility. Every bit a federal facility as was the Murrow Building in Oklahoma. The target is key - he attacked the government itself. We also know that he had demonstrated very openly to fellow soldiers his dislike in a military policy of not allowing a US soldier of the Muslim faith to refrain from fighting/killing other Muslims on the battlefield (you're either a conscience observer or you're not, you can't be conscience about only one group). His sentiment in that regard has been reported repeatedly, and denied by no one. He also openly expressed a desire for regional Muslims in both theaters to "rise up and throw the invaders out", as he put it. This was a clear objection to our presence there, our foreign policy. Also he had made over 10 attempts, its been reported, to contact organized Islamic extremist groups such as Al Qeda. Just a quick aside, I'm curious if during the Cold War had a Major in the US Army attempted to unofficially/privately contact the KGB, and subsequently committed an "act", say voluntarily copied secret documents and was caught on his way to offer them to the Soviets, do you think the word "traitor" and "spy" might have been employed even if he had no official contact with the Ruskies neither at the time of the incident nor after? Just a thought. In addition to Hasan's attempts at contact, his Imam in the local Mosque he attended was linked, although never charged, with conspiring amongst the Somali/Fort Dix plot in New Jersey.
So lets go over the final tally ... he targeted the government in specific - one check mark on the FBI's list. He used an unlawful act of violence as the means of assailing his target - that meets a second criteria. And finally he objected to both the government's foreign policy and internal military policy (a Muslim clause in the conscience observer standard) & desired them both changed based on his being Muslim; and given he then inserted that Muslim faith into the act of violence itself AND given he targeted troops preparing for deployment (remember the objection to our presence in Iraq & Afghanistan), that demonstrates the presence of a clear "political" agenda in my estimation.
So someone explain to me why in hell every government official and media personality within electronic ear shot, save one Independent Senator from Connecticut, is so hesitant to use the word "terrorism?" Are we all hostages to our own language? I submit that in a post 9/11 world politically correct speech is only going to get more people killed until it is abandoned. For God's sake, if we can't even properly NAME our enemies, how can we properly fight them?
I'd say if one were to make a judgment based on the evidence thus far that Hasan is a domestic Muslim terrorist that committed the most lethal act of terrorism since 9/11 itself. Not hyperbole, not reckless emotional reactionary rhetoric, just the most plausible conclusion based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the act.
What say you?
As to the subject line ... this conversation, on a personal level, began on the phone with Jambo. It has become somewhat of a national discussion now, especially after Joe Lieberman's public statements. What to "call" Major Hasan has become a story within the story.
So I ask, by murdering 13 US soldiers and wounding 30 more did Hasan commit an act of terror? Jambo immediately declared that he was simply a "nut." A nut that snapped rather than a terrorist. And his initial reasoning was "he didn't use explosives." Now that may sound odd, but I think that a lot of people probably had that initial reaction. Terrorists plot in dark rooms together with temperamental explosive ingredients and a man watching the door, awaiting instructions from their terror masters just moments before Jack Bauer bursts in and clears the room with extreme prejudice. But is that so?
In other words, can there be a terrorist of one? Can there be a "self prompted" act of terrorism? Is it terrorism if Hasan was inspired by Al Qeda rather than having direct orders or even contact with such groups?
Let me put it another way - if an Irish Catholic detonates a bomb on Downey Street, and it is concluded that he has no other conspirators, never even met an IRA member, does MI-5 refer to the perpetrator as merely a "criminal", "nut" or would they opt for "terrorist", and "act of terrorism?"
Is poisoning a water supply to a controlled group (say a university, etc) is that not an act of terrorism? No "explosives" were employed.
Everyone knows McVeigh was a domestic terrorist, but is a sniper that assassinates abortion "doctors" (my own editorializing there by flanking that word with quotation marks), is he not a terrorist? If so then wasn't the recently executed DC sniper a terrorist?
Seriously, what separates a criminal act from an act of terrorism? (by the way, how many times will this post be flagged by one government agency or another given how oft I've used that word? Hey guys - we're on your side, I'm simply making a point, and one I'm sure you'd agree with .... big smile)
For help I went to the experts - I went about looking for the Webster's & Britannica definitions of the word "terrorist" (which is usually cited as "one committing an act of terror or terrorism", ya, thanks, real helpful) or "terrorism", but I came across perhaps the most useful source of all in this scenario - the official FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
Now that last bit seems to be the necessary and common component among the various twists on the definition - violence with a political or social goal/gripe. So lets accept that portion as paramount in labeling each of the mentioned perpetrators above, shall we?
First, the Irish bomb maker - yep. The Downey Street location is a clear intent to coerce the government into changing political policy. That hits in all categories.
The abortion sniper - yep again. He is violently objecting to a social phenomena, clearly within the realm of terrorism. The same applies to the DC sniper - he had a cadre of written social and political gripes for which he was exacting "revenge", and "punishment."
The poisoned water? Only if it is accompanied by a list of political demands or grievances against the government or civilian population either before the poisoning or there after. So this could be yes or no depending on the intent behind the method.
And that brings us back to Hasan. He murdered with a hand gun, but as we've established the method is but a vehicle, be it explosives, poison or pistols it's all "unlawful use of force or violence" and is thus irrelevant. So, the real question in discerning whether this was an act of terror or not then becomes - what was his intent?
I will leave it to the capable professionals at the FBI to give a final, detailed answer, but let us go with what we know so far. He was wearing Islamic ceremonial garb during the murders. He handed out Korans the morning of the shooting. He screamed "Allah Akbar" as he fired the weapons and murdered the soldiers (all of that will become relevant in a moment). The target, the target wasn't a civilian population, nor individuals within his personal circle, but rather government employees at a government facility. Every bit a federal facility as was the Murrow Building in Oklahoma. The target is key - he attacked the government itself. We also know that he had demonstrated very openly to fellow soldiers his dislike in a military policy of not allowing a US soldier of the Muslim faith to refrain from fighting/killing other Muslims on the battlefield (you're either a conscience observer or you're not, you can't be conscience about only one group). His sentiment in that regard has been reported repeatedly, and denied by no one. He also openly expressed a desire for regional Muslims in both theaters to "rise up and throw the invaders out", as he put it. This was a clear objection to our presence there, our foreign policy. Also he had made over 10 attempts, its been reported, to contact organized Islamic extremist groups such as Al Qeda. Just a quick aside, I'm curious if during the Cold War had a Major in the US Army attempted to unofficially/privately contact the KGB, and subsequently committed an "act", say voluntarily copied secret documents and was caught on his way to offer them to the Soviets, do you think the word "traitor" and "spy" might have been employed even if he had no official contact with the Ruskies neither at the time of the incident nor after? Just a thought. In addition to Hasan's attempts at contact, his Imam in the local Mosque he attended was linked, although never charged, with conspiring amongst the Somali/Fort Dix plot in New Jersey.
So lets go over the final tally ... he targeted the government in specific - one check mark on the FBI's list. He used an unlawful act of violence as the means of assailing his target - that meets a second criteria. And finally he objected to both the government's foreign policy and internal military policy (a Muslim clause in the conscience observer standard) & desired them both changed based on his being Muslim; and given he then inserted that Muslim faith into the act of violence itself AND given he targeted troops preparing for deployment (remember the objection to our presence in Iraq & Afghanistan), that demonstrates the presence of a clear "political" agenda in my estimation.
So someone explain to me why in hell every government official and media personality within electronic ear shot, save one Independent Senator from Connecticut, is so hesitant to use the word "terrorism?" Are we all hostages to our own language? I submit that in a post 9/11 world politically correct speech is only going to get more people killed until it is abandoned. For God's sake, if we can't even properly NAME our enemies, how can we properly fight them?
I'd say if one were to make a judgment based on the evidence thus far that Hasan is a domestic Muslim terrorist that committed the most lethal act of terrorism since 9/11 itself. Not hyperbole, not reckless emotional reactionary rhetoric, just the most plausible conclusion based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the act.
What say you?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Again, Ryan is 100% wrong...
Just kidding. He's right... and we all know it.
While I am a fan of Bill Bennett on the radio, his commentary isn't what you'd call "cutting edge" and he maintains a very moderate format for his call ins. It is a fun, entertaining program more than it is hard analysis... but it can be educational and you can often hear something worthwhile at almost any time during the show. I just don't think he is ever going to have the following that the bigger names have... he isn't "edgy" enough.
What I find most valuable about his program is his first-hand experience in the areas he discusses most. He has a Doctorate, he has two other Master-level degrees, he has years of Cabinet experience (with two different Administrations)... and while he keeps his radio topics and discussions "family-friendly", he does occasionally drop some absolute gems when it comes to his own, undiluted opinion on politics and policies.
Off the air, his efforts to reform our education system have my full and unfettered support. I don't think there is a voice out there better able to articulate the needs and failings of our system than his, and his solutions are perfectly sound and founded on basic, fundamental principles of education with an eye on both what has worked in the past and what the nation needs more of in the future.
Couple this with his open, honest and publicly visible life of faith (a proud but unassuming Roman Catholic) and his very traditional but obvious love and respect for his wife (whom he always refers to as "Mrs. Bennett"), and I am convinced that this man could find a role for himself in the conservative movement rather quickly, if he wanted to.
One more thing... Ryan seemed to say that the British education system might be better than ours, at least in regards to history or geography, but I am not at all sure that is true. Granted, a greater percentage of their students move on to college degrees, but that doesn't mean they are getting a better education. In the case of history, the failing in both systems is rooted in a national loss of objectivity.
There are courses of study that are subjective in nature... literature, music, art, poetry, dance, etc... and there are courses that are objective in nature, and in our society we have seen History 101 relegated to the former area, where history and its lessons are determined to be and presented as "subject to interpretation" rather than just as much a "science" as mathematics, or geology, or chemistry, or astronomy. That isn't to say that there aren't new things to be found, or new areas to explore... even in the fundamentally objective subjects like those mentioned above, new and exciting study is made or discovered almost every day.
I don't feel a good education is to be had without a very thorough mix of both the subjective and the objective areas of study. Literature is just as important as mathematics, and a study of the theater arts is just as vital as a basic understanding of chemistry. Our system has failed in its priorities, and it has spent decades objectifying the subjective and vice versa. A clear and specific example is today's trend (nation-wide) to inject the very subjective topic of global warming into a vast array of study areas, from social studies and earth sciences to student government and (even in my school district) athletics. Another fine example of the subjective nature that our educations system teaches the subject of history is in the manner in which Christian religion is studied.
Christianity is taught to my children as a repressive, backward position bent on burning books and heretics and keeping such luminaries as Galileo or Darwin marginalized as much as possible. What should be taught is that Christianity, like any other human endeavor or field of study, has made mistakes and has had bad people associated with it, but that it has also contributed vast amounts of beauty and art to the world that otherwise would never have been known. Without Christianity, we would have no Sistine Chapel. No Notre Dame Cathedral. Handel wouldn't have composed the Messiah, and Bach wouldn't have written Jesu, Joy of Man's desiring. Da Vinci wouldn't have painted the Last Supper. Our very education system itself, founded on the model of religious or monastic institutions at places like Oxford and Cambridge and Paris and Cologne, would be without Universitas. Where would the world be now without the contributions of such Christian (and, specifically Catholic) scientists as Nicholas Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Steno, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre (the first proponent of the Big Bang theory and a Jesuit priest!)?
Why are my children taught that there is no room for religion in education, but NOT taught that history has provided us with excellent examples of purely secular, atheistic societies that completely removed religion from education, and that each one has failed in its promise to build a better world... those examples being the USSR, Communist Cuba, the Eastern Block States, Vietnam, North Korea and Maoist China? How is that sort of selective reasoning NOT understood to be exactly the kind of subjective tripe that they accuse "Christians" of doing for the last 2,000+ years?
While I am a fan of Bill Bennett on the radio, his commentary isn't what you'd call "cutting edge" and he maintains a very moderate format for his call ins. It is a fun, entertaining program more than it is hard analysis... but it can be educational and you can often hear something worthwhile at almost any time during the show. I just don't think he is ever going to have the following that the bigger names have... he isn't "edgy" enough.
What I find most valuable about his program is his first-hand experience in the areas he discusses most. He has a Doctorate, he has two other Master-level degrees, he has years of Cabinet experience (with two different Administrations)... and while he keeps his radio topics and discussions "family-friendly", he does occasionally drop some absolute gems when it comes to his own, undiluted opinion on politics and policies.
Off the air, his efforts to reform our education system have my full and unfettered support. I don't think there is a voice out there better able to articulate the needs and failings of our system than his, and his solutions are perfectly sound and founded on basic, fundamental principles of education with an eye on both what has worked in the past and what the nation needs more of in the future.
Couple this with his open, honest and publicly visible life of faith (a proud but unassuming Roman Catholic) and his very traditional but obvious love and respect for his wife (whom he always refers to as "Mrs. Bennett"), and I am convinced that this man could find a role for himself in the conservative movement rather quickly, if he wanted to.
One more thing... Ryan seemed to say that the British education system might be better than ours, at least in regards to history or geography, but I am not at all sure that is true. Granted, a greater percentage of their students move on to college degrees, but that doesn't mean they are getting a better education. In the case of history, the failing in both systems is rooted in a national loss of objectivity.
There are courses of study that are subjective in nature... literature, music, art, poetry, dance, etc... and there are courses that are objective in nature, and in our society we have seen History 101 relegated to the former area, where history and its lessons are determined to be and presented as "subject to interpretation" rather than just as much a "science" as mathematics, or geology, or chemistry, or astronomy. That isn't to say that there aren't new things to be found, or new areas to explore... even in the fundamentally objective subjects like those mentioned above, new and exciting study is made or discovered almost every day.
I don't feel a good education is to be had without a very thorough mix of both the subjective and the objective areas of study. Literature is just as important as mathematics, and a study of the theater arts is just as vital as a basic understanding of chemistry. Our system has failed in its priorities, and it has spent decades objectifying the subjective and vice versa. A clear and specific example is today's trend (nation-wide) to inject the very subjective topic of global warming into a vast array of study areas, from social studies and earth sciences to student government and (even in my school district) athletics. Another fine example of the subjective nature that our educations system teaches the subject of history is in the manner in which Christian religion is studied.
Christianity is taught to my children as a repressive, backward position bent on burning books and heretics and keeping such luminaries as Galileo or Darwin marginalized as much as possible. What should be taught is that Christianity, like any other human endeavor or field of study, has made mistakes and has had bad people associated with it, but that it has also contributed vast amounts of beauty and art to the world that otherwise would never have been known. Without Christianity, we would have no Sistine Chapel. No Notre Dame Cathedral. Handel wouldn't have composed the Messiah, and Bach wouldn't have written Jesu, Joy of Man's desiring. Da Vinci wouldn't have painted the Last Supper. Our very education system itself, founded on the model of religious or monastic institutions at places like Oxford and Cambridge and Paris and Cologne, would be without Universitas. Where would the world be now without the contributions of such Christian (and, specifically Catholic) scientists as Nicholas Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Nicolas Steno, Gregor Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre (the first proponent of the Big Bang theory and a Jesuit priest!)?
Why are my children taught that there is no room for religion in education, but NOT taught that history has provided us with excellent examples of purely secular, atheistic societies that completely removed religion from education, and that each one has failed in its promise to build a better world... those examples being the USSR, Communist Cuba, the Eastern Block States, Vietnam, North Korea and Maoist China? How is that sort of selective reasoning NOT understood to be exactly the kind of subjective tripe that they accuse "Christians" of doing for the last 2,000+ years?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
"Bloody Yanks."
Said a certain bicyclist in Upottery, England some years back ...
At any rate, let me ask you - do you think that 1 in 100 could name the day and month on which we celebrate Veterans Day each year? How about offer a short description of how it came to be - the 11, 11, 11 story? Maybe 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000 perhaps?
I find the over all lack of historical knowledge that the average American has, of his own country in particular, to be disdainful in the extreme. I know we've all grumbled about that since our days at the Grand, and surely even before that. I recall hearing Jambo say to Titus once: "The Force is strong in this one", after I quipped that most Americans gleen their knowledge of classical history from episodes of Xena Warrior Princess ... and things haven't gotten better on that front since that day sitting box. Stats up and down the line paint a sad picture. A 2008 study revealed that a full third of US high school seniors couldn't point out their own state on a map. Nearly half couldn't name the nations consisting of the Axis Powers. And it gets worse from there.
As an aside I must give Bill Bennett, excuse me, Dr. Bill Bennett (he taught philosophy), credit. He is on a one man mission to make detailed US history a required course beginning at the elementary level, rather then starting at middle school as is the prevelant trend in the US education system.
Now you can argue that the Brits have a vast knowledge of their history and we are far and away a more productive nation by every measurable standard; but I find that a facile analogy. And while I'm no conspiracy theorist I do think it more than coincidence that public educators, whom vote overwhelmingly for one Party over the other, are the very people that do a piss poor job educating their pupils on US, or any, history (the idea being that a factual, detailed account of the Founders, the Constitution, etc wouldn't lend itself to a nanny state mentality). Any 5th grader that comes home and can't name the first THREE US presidents has been failed by his school - a scenario I realized was prevalent among many of my players on our public school's 5th grade football team. And yes, yes, the parent is the primary educator, I understand that and embrace it, believe me. And my children can name those presidents and much more, I've seen to that. But given the American tax payer foots the bill for public education to the tune of $9,138 per child, per year (according to the US Census Bureau) is it that outrageous for me to ask the DOE to spend a little less time encouraging district wide "Earth Days", and a little more time instructing students on just whom those elder men ARE on the dollar bills we keep forking over?
At any rate, let me ask you - do you think that 1 in 100 could name the day and month on which we celebrate Veterans Day each year? How about offer a short description of how it came to be - the 11, 11, 11 story? Maybe 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000 perhaps?
I find the over all lack of historical knowledge that the average American has, of his own country in particular, to be disdainful in the extreme. I know we've all grumbled about that since our days at the Grand, and surely even before that. I recall hearing Jambo say to Titus once: "The Force is strong in this one", after I quipped that most Americans gleen their knowledge of classical history from episodes of Xena Warrior Princess ... and things haven't gotten better on that front since that day sitting box. Stats up and down the line paint a sad picture. A 2008 study revealed that a full third of US high school seniors couldn't point out their own state on a map. Nearly half couldn't name the nations consisting of the Axis Powers. And it gets worse from there.
As an aside I must give Bill Bennett, excuse me, Dr. Bill Bennett (he taught philosophy), credit. He is on a one man mission to make detailed US history a required course beginning at the elementary level, rather then starting at middle school as is the prevelant trend in the US education system.
Now you can argue that the Brits have a vast knowledge of their history and we are far and away a more productive nation by every measurable standard; but I find that a facile analogy. And while I'm no conspiracy theorist I do think it more than coincidence that public educators, whom vote overwhelmingly for one Party over the other, are the very people that do a piss poor job educating their pupils on US, or any, history (the idea being that a factual, detailed account of the Founders, the Constitution, etc wouldn't lend itself to a nanny state mentality). Any 5th grader that comes home and can't name the first THREE US presidents has been failed by his school - a scenario I realized was prevalent among many of my players on our public school's 5th grade football team. And yes, yes, the parent is the primary educator, I understand that and embrace it, believe me. And my children can name those presidents and much more, I've seen to that. But given the American tax payer foots the bill for public education to the tune of $9,138 per child, per year (according to the US Census Bureau) is it that outrageous for me to ask the DOE to spend a little less time encouraging district wide "Earth Days", and a little more time instructing students on just whom those elder men ARE on the dollar bills we keep forking over?
Tomorrow...
On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the year 1918, the "Great War" ended with the Armistice of Compiegne. In the nearly 100 years since, we have seen the rememberance of this day change from that of honoring veterans of that war to honoring veterans of ALL wars. A good and right thing to honor, no questions there.
Ironically, just last night I was reading a biography of Pershing because I couldn't sleep (I took my 15 year old son to his robotics club meeting and had a huge cup of coffee... never good), and it was then that it occured to me that the date of the Armistice was coming up quickly... and that drove me to read a bit more carefully.
Having met the last living American veteran of WWI (Private Frank Buckles) at my former place of employment, and having been deeply effected by the conversation I had with him then, I found the biography particularly interesting. It was written in the early 80's by a Dr. Samuel Greene, and it is a very objective look at Pershing's career (not always flattering to Pershing, but not anti-Pershing, either, by any stretch). It touched rather hard, however, on Pershing's reasoning for keeping the attacks going in the last hours... indeed, the last MINUTES... of the war. At Pershing's orders, more than 3,500 American soldiers and marines died in attacks on the German lines in the last 120 minutes of the war... for no greater reason than the occupation of an additional few hundred yards of mud, blood and barbed wire.
Even more telling was the critical view made by the author about the means by which Wilson directed policy in the days before Nov 11 and in the weeks and months after. If the author wasn't painting a "rosey" picture of Pershing, he was even harder on Wilson.
Anyway, I did find it very interesting that a date now determined to honor veterans and service men and women has a history so stained by questionable leadership (at best) with questionable aims.
Ironically, just last night I was reading a biography of Pershing because I couldn't sleep (I took my 15 year old son to his robotics club meeting and had a huge cup of coffee... never good), and it was then that it occured to me that the date of the Armistice was coming up quickly... and that drove me to read a bit more carefully.
Having met the last living American veteran of WWI (Private Frank Buckles) at my former place of employment, and having been deeply effected by the conversation I had with him then, I found the biography particularly interesting. It was written in the early 80's by a Dr. Samuel Greene, and it is a very objective look at Pershing's career (not always flattering to Pershing, but not anti-Pershing, either, by any stretch). It touched rather hard, however, on Pershing's reasoning for keeping the attacks going in the last hours... indeed, the last MINUTES... of the war. At Pershing's orders, more than 3,500 American soldiers and marines died in attacks on the German lines in the last 120 minutes of the war... for no greater reason than the occupation of an additional few hundred yards of mud, blood and barbed wire.
Even more telling was the critical view made by the author about the means by which Wilson directed policy in the days before Nov 11 and in the weeks and months after. If the author wasn't painting a "rosey" picture of Pershing, he was even harder on Wilson.
Anyway, I did find it very interesting that a date now determined to honor veterans and service men and women has a history so stained by questionable leadership (at best) with questionable aims.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Simon and Garfunkel
Is it just me or do you keep hearing the opening line to "Sounds of Silence" too when you see this type of map? "Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again."
It's a Cat 2 now. The NOAA site is at National Hurricane Center.
Talk about a post that should be titled, "Memory Lane." Stay safe brother ...
Memory lane...
As has already been stated, Liz has a "honey-do" list as long as my leg, and one of them is organizing all my crap so we can finally empty the storage unit and save ourselves the cost every month. So, yesterday, we started going through all the old bins and boxes of my stuff. Some of the treasures contained within have already been scanned and posted on Facebook (thanks to Liz's obsession with that site), but I wanted to talk about another that I found.
Amidst all the letters, photos, mementos and knick-knacks were (literally) dozens of books I haven't seen in (literally) decades. One was a series of summaries on the military-political possibilities of conflict in the various regions of the world, written by James F. Dunnigan, a military historian and analyst for the Reagan White House in 1984.
This man touched on areas of conflict and tension across the globe, and having picked up the dusty tome, I thought it would be very nearly irrelevant in the light of the last 25 years of actual history. In fact, however, he was shockingly accurate.
His comments on Afghanistan, for example, obviously weren't 100% accurate. He made the argument that the Soviet-Afghan war had the potential to last decades, and seemed to think it would. The premise he based this on wasn't in error, though. He felt that the culture of the Afghani peoples made the effort that the Soviets were trying to accomplish so "long term" in scope that he failed to take into account the fact that the USSR would fail before the effort was abandoned, and not the other way around.
His analysis of the Iraqi threat to world peace also seems, on the surface, in err... but with a little deeper reading, we see he was actually spot on. He seemed a bit dismissive of the threat the '85 Iraqi regime posed to the rest of the world, but only because he recognized how insignificant the actual socio-political/military capacity of this rogue nation posed to anyone further away from the Iraqi frontier than 200 kilometers. He knew and understood the threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE that Iraq posed... but also saw that there was no functional ability to command the massive Iraqi military machine outside of ordering mass human-wave attacks on fortified and entrenched forces across the Iranian border. He also recognized Iraq's inability to maintain support and supply means over even moderate distances against concerted campaigns of interdiction by even the most basic means.
His analysis of the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, however, are the most telling. He lumped Lybia in with this as well, being THE most obvious example of a rogue dictator that the mid-80's could produce (ala Muammar al-Gaddafi), but couldn't be expected to know just how effective the retaliation strikes Reagan was yet to smack-down on Tripoli would be.
North Korea's habit of pushing the "West" to the point of intervention, then backing down when given some money/aid/technology/trade status as a consolation prize was detailed in these pages as far back as my high school years, and have proven true in the 25 years since. So has Iran's ability to influence violence and instability throughout the region by sending as many imams into its neighbors hands as it has sent weapons, munitions, and money into the hands of its neighbor's enemies.
Another surprising piece of this work was his analysis of the problems facing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Aside from history's more obvious lessons (Saddam, Iran, and bin Laden), he talks at length about Yemen. In the years the book was written, there were two Yemen's, one of which waged a 7-day shooting "war" with the Saudi Army in '83 that had no discernible results other than the dead soldiers it produced. However, relations with the Yemen people (regardless of politics within Yemen) has not improved one iota. There are more than one million Yemeni men working the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula today, and all are treated worse than second-class citizens. They are forced to live in separated, isolated communities with little to no contact with Saudi nationals. Their communications with family back in Yemen are restricted and closely monitored, as is their ability to travel. Everything the Saudis accuse Israel of in regards to the "inhuman treatment of Palestinians" they are just as guilty of with the people they bring in to work their oil wells and processing plants from Yemen.
This situation has, just in the last few days, grown from a smolder to a flame in Arabia Felix. We can now read about shots exchanged across the border, insurrection and violence within the Yemeni community inside the kingdom, and a build up of forces to address the "problem" on both sides.
The most telling example of Dr. Dunnigan's insight is with the Russians, however...
He was writing about the Soviet Union, but throughout his writing, he routinely refers to them as "Russians", and explains himself as doing this because the elite ruling-class that controlled every aspect of political and diplomatic (and military) activity and goals in the USSR were exclusively RUSSIAN and maintained an exclusively RUSSIAN advantage in all their stated goals. Nothing the Politburo did was ever exclusively for the benefit of ethnic Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians (even Stalin didn't trust Georgians!), Armenians, or any one of the other 180 "ethnic" peoples of the former USSR.
The goals he outlines in his work as being the goals of "Russia" can still be seen today as the goals of modern, post-Soviet Moscow. They are STILL working to build a greater influence in economics, politics, and military ventures across the globe. They are firming up their claims on regional, even extra-territorial, resources (ala the planting of Russian "flags" under the polar ice caps) while at the same time building on their ability to provide those resources to hungry (even starving!) markets across Euroasia. They also have the largest stockpile of fissionable material (whether in bombs or not) on the face of the earth... much of which is not satisfactorily accounted for, either.
More importantly, the PROBLEMS that the USSR faced in 1985 in regards to increasing unrest and growing populations within the "Soviet" Muslim demographic are no longer "theirs"... they are the world's. The instability inherent in such regimes as Khazikstan, Azherbijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, and (the most glaring example) the Chechnyan region of Russia are no longer the SOLE responsibility of Moscow, but are now the SHARED threat of the entire globe.
An eye-opening read, I can tell you.
Amidst all the letters, photos, mementos and knick-knacks were (literally) dozens of books I haven't seen in (literally) decades. One was a series of summaries on the military-political possibilities of conflict in the various regions of the world, written by James F. Dunnigan, a military historian and analyst for the Reagan White House in 1984.
This man touched on areas of conflict and tension across the globe, and having picked up the dusty tome, I thought it would be very nearly irrelevant in the light of the last 25 years of actual history. In fact, however, he was shockingly accurate.
His comments on Afghanistan, for example, obviously weren't 100% accurate. He made the argument that the Soviet-Afghan war had the potential to last decades, and seemed to think it would. The premise he based this on wasn't in error, though. He felt that the culture of the Afghani peoples made the effort that the Soviets were trying to accomplish so "long term" in scope that he failed to take into account the fact that the USSR would fail before the effort was abandoned, and not the other way around.
His analysis of the Iraqi threat to world peace also seems, on the surface, in err... but with a little deeper reading, we see he was actually spot on. He seemed a bit dismissive of the threat the '85 Iraqi regime posed to the rest of the world, but only because he recognized how insignificant the actual socio-political/military capacity of this rogue nation posed to anyone further away from the Iraqi frontier than 200 kilometers. He knew and understood the threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE that Iraq posed... but also saw that there was no functional ability to command the massive Iraqi military machine outside of ordering mass human-wave attacks on fortified and entrenched forces across the Iranian border. He also recognized Iraq's inability to maintain support and supply means over even moderate distances against concerted campaigns of interdiction by even the most basic means.
His analysis of the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, however, are the most telling. He lumped Lybia in with this as well, being THE most obvious example of a rogue dictator that the mid-80's could produce (ala Muammar al-Gaddafi), but couldn't be expected to know just how effective the retaliation strikes Reagan was yet to smack-down on Tripoli would be.
North Korea's habit of pushing the "West" to the point of intervention, then backing down when given some money/aid/technology/trade status as a consolation prize was detailed in these pages as far back as my high school years, and have proven true in the 25 years since. So has Iran's ability to influence violence and instability throughout the region by sending as many imams into its neighbors hands as it has sent weapons, munitions, and money into the hands of its neighbor's enemies.
Another surprising piece of this work was his analysis of the problems facing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Aside from history's more obvious lessons (Saddam, Iran, and bin Laden), he talks at length about Yemen. In the years the book was written, there were two Yemen's, one of which waged a 7-day shooting "war" with the Saudi Army in '83 that had no discernible results other than the dead soldiers it produced. However, relations with the Yemen people (regardless of politics within Yemen) has not improved one iota. There are more than one million Yemeni men working the oil fields of the Arabian peninsula today, and all are treated worse than second-class citizens. They are forced to live in separated, isolated communities with little to no contact with Saudi nationals. Their communications with family back in Yemen are restricted and closely monitored, as is their ability to travel. Everything the Saudis accuse Israel of in regards to the "inhuman treatment of Palestinians" they are just as guilty of with the people they bring in to work their oil wells and processing plants from Yemen.
This situation has, just in the last few days, grown from a smolder to a flame in Arabia Felix. We can now read about shots exchanged across the border, insurrection and violence within the Yemeni community inside the kingdom, and a build up of forces to address the "problem" on both sides.
The most telling example of Dr. Dunnigan's insight is with the Russians, however...
He was writing about the Soviet Union, but throughout his writing, he routinely refers to them as "Russians", and explains himself as doing this because the elite ruling-class that controlled every aspect of political and diplomatic (and military) activity and goals in the USSR were exclusively RUSSIAN and maintained an exclusively RUSSIAN advantage in all their stated goals. Nothing the Politburo did was ever exclusively for the benefit of ethnic Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians (even Stalin didn't trust Georgians!), Armenians, or any one of the other 180 "ethnic" peoples of the former USSR.
The goals he outlines in his work as being the goals of "Russia" can still be seen today as the goals of modern, post-Soviet Moscow. They are STILL working to build a greater influence in economics, politics, and military ventures across the globe. They are firming up their claims on regional, even extra-territorial, resources (ala the planting of Russian "flags" under the polar ice caps) while at the same time building on their ability to provide those resources to hungry (even starving!) markets across Euroasia. They also have the largest stockpile of fissionable material (whether in bombs or not) on the face of the earth... much of which is not satisfactorily accounted for, either.
More importantly, the PROBLEMS that the USSR faced in 1985 in regards to increasing unrest and growing populations within the "Soviet" Muslim demographic are no longer "theirs"... they are the world's. The instability inherent in such regimes as Khazikstan, Azherbijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, and (the most glaring example) the Chechnyan region of Russia are no longer the SOLE responsibility of Moscow, but are now the SHARED threat of the entire globe.
An eye-opening read, I can tell you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
