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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
