|
|
|
Someplace new you'll want to visit often
Click the image, bookmark the site. You may have noticed already that the pack has gotten a little smaller. There have been some "philosophical differences" behind the scenes for a while now but since and have been decent enough not to air them publicly I'll follow suit. The Gray Dog will be contributing to the new site and to Old War Dogs, some of the Dogs who left the pack will be posting only at the new site, and you may have heard the last of some of the others altogether for all I know. I'll be linking to the new site on occasion and I hope they'll link back to OWD now and then. I'll allude to "philosophical differences" just enough to say I think and are aimed at ecosystem niches sufficiently different to allow both sites to prosper and I wish the new group well. *** Rurik's comment captures my sentiments toward the new site far better than I was able to express them myself:
|
|
Contributed by Bill Faith on January 27, 2007 at 09:19 PM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
The nature of trivial things
Sometimes we must acknowledge the trivial nature of those things that seem so important. This one of those times!
Life, and death, intrude. Bless them all and I hope our thanks follow them on this long journey. By the ones and twos these folks are giving their all, but sometimes a slap in face is needed. Let's hope it does some good. [edit] Since some may have misunderstood the above... We lead lives of trivial import compared to some. Maybe these deaths will be the slap in the face needed to remind us collectively as a nation what's at stake. I feel I'm repeating myself, but apparently not? |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on January 20, 2007 at 06:46 PM in , , | | | |
|
Man the Barricades!
H/T FR An event occurred earlier this month that nearly fell through the cracks.
So the U.S. was invaded by an armed group, this group did as it pleased, the NG withdrew. *** [-- I accidentally added something to this post that I intended to put , then caught my mistake and moved it -- Bill Faith --] |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on January 20, 2007 at 11:56 AM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
In through the out door
H/T Supe I've been predicting this for quite a while. I ain't proud or prescient, just observant.
See for my view of the future/present. I have an admittedly myopic view of such things. We allowed this to happen by concentrating on trivial, but fun, crap like Kerry. Yeah, I know, I know... 'closing the barn door after the horse got out' and all that. We bloggers write page after page about 'what is wrong', we highlight a few possible fixes, and the obvious goes unnoticed by most. Just now we have a lame-duck President who seems to have lost his way. There is a single issue that surpasses everything else and it continues to fall through the cracks of our busy lives. The battle over whether we will become a Spanish speaking Islamic world/nation trumps every other issue! Gays ignore it, Feminists ignore it, the global warming folks ignore it... and the anti-Kerry folks ignore it. The list of folks who spent huge amounts of energy and time on issues that simply will not matter (or worse) is scary. Every single issue is important, mind you, but context matters, and the context has been lost. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on January 17, 2007 at 06:44 PM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Shucks
Just got back from my road trip. Hooked up with a coupla Old War Dogs. Reckon you fine readers can figure out who is Ponsdorf.
Me and Larry Bailey.
Me and Steve Gardner Back in West Virginia now... Snow and 30 degrees. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on January 16, 2007 at 04:21 PM in | | | |
|
|
|
RE: Vapid, Vacant, Vacuous
The glib nature of my last post may have been unintentionally misleading. Sending the National Guard to our border was a blatant political act; cynically made by one who has shown little interest in actually securing our borders. This current 'surge' has similar earmarks. Units have been moved, as needed, within the Iraqi theater since we crossed that border. Troop strength has varied, etc. Steps that would actually do some good are being bypassed in favor of expedience! I keep hoping that there is something going on 'out-of-view' and each time there is nothing good under the covers. President Bush has my respect as President, and as CinC, but I am furious with him and myself. Kerry is one of the most loathsome critters around, and yet... and yet... there is some growing merit in the old saying "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Think about it! Me, I'm pretty tired of having my hopes and expectations trashed by someone I wanted to trust. At least a President Kerry would be an easy target for criticism... I'd KNOW he'd do the wrong thing and expect it. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on January 13, 2007 at 03:09 AM in , | | | |
|
|
|
Vapid, Vacant, Vacuous
I have tried to support Bush, even when I disagree with him. But no more!!! Since he's not running for re-election he doesn't even have the saving grace of being the lesser of two evils. 'The Surge' is ridiculous on it's face. Within the past year troops have been moved in country (Iraq) to meet changing needs. Just what has changed? This has all the hallmarks of a minor publicity stunt; not unlike 'the surge' of the NG to our borders. It does nothing but put additional lives at risk. From sunny Clearwater Florida... a beautiful day. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on January 11, 2007 at 02:39 PM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
Ennui
Ennui: a feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction. It's applicable to my mood and a fun word to say. Apathy, boredom, other similar meaning words just don't roll off the tongue as well. Curious that it's a French word... Millions of my fellow citizens do not see Islamic Imperialism as a threat, if they do they are convinced that it's somehow our fault and we kind of deserve it. Many of those same citizens seem to have a suicidal disconnect from reality. Just to pick two groups that should be waving red flags of warning. Gays and feminists should be saying something like "We hate Bush, but as it stands, he's our first line of defense!" Our vaunted First Amendment is held up as a sacred right, our press trumpets it as it hides from another reality. Sharia law doesn't seem to even acknowledge that idea. Nope, silence might be understandable, but actively working towards your own demise is not. In a few days I expect to be in Southwest Florida, playing in and on the water for a couple of weeks. Maybe, just maybe, I can explore something other than fools and foolishness. Maybe even shake the ennui for a while? |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 29, 2006 at 02:34 PM in , | | | |
|
|
|
Further thoughts on Mercenaries
Thanks to a friend, I have been able to read the entire Boston Globe article linked in Zero Ponsdorf's Now I am even more disturbed. I see this development as an intersection of our military problem and also of the illegal immigration threat, the confluence of two threats to our national identity and existence. I should not have been surprised that this is being advocated by Thomas Donnelly of the (supposedly) Conservative, American Enterprise Institute, Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings, and Max Boot of the CFR. ( I find that none of them has any real military experience. Donnelly was a civilian editor of Armed Forces Journal, Boot a Wall Street Journal reporter, and O’Hanlon a Peace Corps member.) Though I have not taken any polls, I suspect that the idea is also wildly popular with the other self-styled "National Greatness Conservatives", such as Bill Kristol, Vin Weber, Jack Kemp, and perhaps even George Will. These are the same people who want an army which they can use to impose at bayonet-point their vision of Democracy across the globe, and their vision of the Globe on America. They also seem to be enthusiasts for the so-called SPP initiative, the North American Union and the abolition of border controls or limits on immigration. To these folks America is not a country; it is an idea. A very abstract idea. And if the actual people are hesitant to swallow this idea, then, in the words of the Stalinist playwright Berthod Brecht, maybe we should elect a different people. We are a "credal nation", defined not by our language, our culture, our history, holidays, or any thing else save an "idea". And they wish to proceed credal to the metal. Their idea is based on a fragment of the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, lifted out of context, though not an actual part of out Constitution or laws, cemented to the words of an immigrant poet Emma Lazarus, which were not given any official status either. For them America is a global boarding house, with as few social rules as possible, where the actions of the tenants are not to be judged, so long as they bend their knee to global equality, and personal interchangeability, and do not interfere with production. The people are valued not as individuals, or even as distinct groups - Vietnamese-Americans, or Hillbillies, or Scandie farmers, or Black Jazz singers, Cowboys, or anything else; just as economic production-consumption units. This is ominous. When Jack Kemp described the United States as the world’s first credal nation, he was dead wrong, as evidenced by the recurring fundamental disagreements culminating in a civil war, and the many years of reconstruction and continued disagreement afterward. We became (if at all) a credal nation only during the 1920s-1930s, under the influence of Carl Sandburg’s mythologized Lincoln, and FDR’s politicking. The first nation created explicitly on the basis of an abstract idea, a creed, was the Soviet Union, created at the beginning of the 1920s as the world’s First Proletarian Nation. And this suggests the fundamental problem with credal nations. A Frenchman or Italian may be a Communist or a Social Democrat, or a Conservative, a Christian or Atheist, and still remain a Frenchman or Italian. An individual may immigrate, and become a citizen of France, but to become a Frenchman requires maybe a generation or two of acculturation and assimilation. The same for other nations defined by ethnicity or culture. But in a credal nation, if you disavow the creed, you disavow the nation. Lenin solved this problem in Russia by eliminating all those who would not, or could not, be proletarian Marxists. Though American dissenters are not yet shot (except Vickie Weaver and David Koresh), they are often harassed. A major reason is that the US Armed Forces still retain a tie to the American people, even if it is becoming attenuated. American soldiers may feel alienated from the assorted anti-military protesters and the civilians who do not serve, but they still recognize their brothers and cousins and neighbors. At the very least they can exchange understandable curses. They do not shoot fellow Americans; the brief exception at Kent State in 1970 occurred under exceptional circumstances where semi-trained National Guardsmen felt themselves threatened by a mob. Here is where the utility of a foreign-based military comes into play. Their loyalty is not to the people, or the flag, or to anybody but the officer who commands and feeds them, and to their fellow mercenary comrades. The old Soviet Union used to use ethnic minorities in the internal troops units of the MVD and KGB, always assigned to some other distant and not very congenial region. Resentful Uzbek boys from Central Asia would have no hesitation if ordered to crack some Russian heads in Moscow or Bryansk. Georgians might not mind shooting Latvians or Estonians, who might in turn be willing to suppress Central Asians and Far Easterners, etc.. What would happen if, some time in the future, President Obama were to order a battalion of Mexicans to search and disarm a Korean neighborhood in southern California using whatever force was necessary? Or maybe if he sent in a battalion of troops recruited from Pakistan to restore order in Chicago or St. Paul? There is no doubt the troops would perform enthusiastically, probably with all the vigor they would exercise back home. No fear of them restraining themselves out of community ties. At the same time, large numbers of linguistically diverse troops formed a different problem for the Soviet Army, and would for us as well. There were about a hundred different languages in the draft pool of the old Soviet Union, and even though many of these draftees ended up in the labor battalions, still many more found their way to the Ground Forces. I heard an American colonel once comment "I would not, as a company commander, be encouraged to learn that two thirds of my company could understand the language of command." This led to problems even during World War II, which became increasingly worse throughout the rest of Soviet postwar experience. Anyone who thinks this would be no problem for the United States is clearly beyond responsible thought. A language requirement to enlist? Don’t make me laugh. Certainly not if we’re going to raise the sort of large numbers these "experts" are talking about, nor if we’re going to raise them overseas. Do you really think you’re going to enlist a battalion’s worth of West European English-speakers to fight our wars? Get Serious. The overseas enlistees will come from Somalia, from Yemen, from Pakistan and Algeria, and many other hellholes of the Fourth World. And they will not be the healthy, educated, and intelligent recruits the Army thinks it will be getting. The educated elites from these countries will get to America on Student Visas and vanish into the unpoliced crowds of American cities; no need for them to enlist. The semi-literate campesinos from Central America will seem the pick of the catch. And why should many more of them volunteer to enlist in order to gain citizenship the hard way when they will be allowed to cross an open border and fade into the urban landscape. So long as there is no credible control on our borders or our immigration enforcement, there will be no motivation for foreigners to enlist. And just think what the ACLU will say once it discovers that the overseas recruiting offices are rejecting Somalis disproportionately for poor health and literacy. That will be discrimination. We will find ourselves enlisting the dregs of the Fourth World, healing them and educating them, maybe even teaching them to wear shoes, all on the time of their army contract, and giving them citizenship after discharging them, probably just about the time they complete their modernization training. Very quickly, we will find it necessary to attenuate the process, probably by abandoning attempts at language training, in favor of ethnic units. We will have Urdu battalions and Kikuyu battalions, and Arabic and Hmoob units, and God knows what else. And these units will not conform to American disciplinary and performance standards either. The Army will be transformed into a global social uplift program. Trying to recruit enlistees from other major powers runs a serious risk of causing diplomatic incidents or worse. After all countries such as Germany, Denmark, Poland and Russia probably would resent our syphoning off their potential military strength. Some countries, such as Russia might construe it as a "hostile act", and in other countries, such as Poland or Czechia, or South Korea, it would only diminish the strength of countries we are committed to defending. Further, what will happen if, and when we find ourselves engaged in a war against a country which has become a major source of our troops? Might that not test the loyalties of our mercenaries? Might it not impede the further supply of such mercenaries? Britain never sent its Gurkhas to invade Nepal. And in the case of some countries, significant numbers, or even any of their nationals in our armed forces could prove a deadly security risk. Do we want a battalion of Pasdaran in our army? Or maybe North Koreans? One of the most frequent arguments I have heard against reinstituting the draft is that our professional NCOs and officers do not have the time or desire to nurse and train reluctant American conscripts. The time spent on training and acculturating these foreign volunteers will be far, far worse. And they will be capable of only the meanest cannon-fodder sorts of assignment. Even (or especially) contemporary infantry duties may be beyond them. If and when these totally alien ethnic units are finally committed to action, the American public is likely to prove totally indifferent to whatever casualties they suffer. "The Kikuyu Battalion lost 90% strength last week? So what." This may be attractive to short-sighted policy makers, able to wage war on the political cheap. But it will have consequences. The mercenary units will prove totally indifferent to our interests in return. The survivors who eventually gain US citizenship are likely to be cynical and ungrateful. and hardly acculturated into American society, or able to adjust. But then, that is not really an issue is it? Not if you consider homo sapiens to be only fungible consumption-production units. And that seems to give away much of this game. It is not really about strengthening the US military, but about commandeering the US military as another way to end-run our own national sovereignty. Though the flag may be American, the Army will no longer be American in any meaningful sense. For a while the professional officers may be drawn from an elite class of Americans, though before long, we will find that these non-American American soldiers have risen through the ranks and are holding command positions. Milton Friedman commented on the incompatibility of open immigration with a modern welfare state. When the German immigrants evoked by Max Boot left the Union Armies after 1865, they either got productive civilian jobs, returned to Germany, or fell into failure. They did not swell a welfare empire. (We may also ponder whether the experience of being invaded and suppressed by foreign-speaking mercenaries may have added to the Southern embitterment of the post-civil war era. Mr. Boot may also want to consider the Irish troops in the context of the New York City draft riots and anti-Negro pogrom; I hope that is not among the precedents he would have us emulate because they are precedents.) Under the mercenary plan, any minimally trained survivor could go directly from the military to the dole, but with a knowledge of brute force and a sense of entitlement. Can anyone else see a problem? Mr. O’Hanlon invokes the ethnic participation of Germans and British fighting side-by-side with the colonists. Sorry, but those Germans were colonists, particularly from Pennsylvania, and maybe some Hessian mercenaries who deserted; and doesn't that raise questions about mercenaries? And the British?...well up to July 4, 1776, most of the other colonists were British, by definition. Except for the leaders like von Steuben, Kosciusko, Pulaski and such, the common soldiers were not brought over as Colonist mercenaries. Those leaders, particularly the Poles, and Hungarians, were professional soldiers who had ended on the losing side of rebellions against Russia or Austro-Hungary, and had to find employment far beyond the reach of retribution. And on occasion Washington is quoted has having given the order on several important occasions "Let none but Americans be placed on sentry duty tonight..." Nor were the many European immigrants who served in the American Army during the Indian Wars, were not brought over specifically for the purpose of enlisting, nor did they enlist in groups. Likewise, today’s Americans of Ukrainian or Honduran origin are not at issue either. Such people are the glory of our country and our military, serving out of pride and devotion to their new homeland, and a reproach to those native-born Americans too self-precious to serve. But they were not recruited as foreigners or overseas, nor do they serve as foreigners. The recruitment of foreign mercenaries overseas is something entirely different, and that is what alarms me. An ethnic battalion of Ukrainians is entirely different from 600 individual Ukrainians, all conversant in English, and dispersed throughout a 700,000 man army. The Filipino Scouts recruited by the United States were recruited only for service in the Philippines. At the time the Philippines was in a colonial relationship. None were sent to fight in Europe, or even anywhere else in the Pacific Theater. The Filipino mess staff serving with the US Navy are a special and traditional case. Likewise, the Swiss Guard, who may arrive from all over Europe, but also are armed with halberds and have not gone to war in memory. While we are on the subject of invoking prior experience of mercenary recruitment, we ought not forget the sad experience of the Western Roman Empire, who suffered greatly from their mistake in ceding their legionary duties to Germanic barbarians who opened the way for invading Goths. Nor should we forget the advice of Machiavelli who warned so strongly on the unreliability and risk of mercenary troops. They will flee in battle, or desert to an enemy who buys them with higher pay. or they may turn upon their supposed employer and wreak havoc on the employing state. If there is a problem with our military being overcommitted, and I agree this seems likely, there would be other, saner responses. First of all, we might reduce our commitments to less critical areas. Certainly ten years after Bill Clinton said we would be in Bosnia for only a single year, it is time to go home. Likewise, in both Germany and South Korea, our continuing presence is of debatable importance, seemingly of most importance to the local merchants who still despise us. Much more importantly, we might choose to discontinue all "peace-keeping" and "nation-building" operations and to affirm the doctrine that the US military is not for nation building but for nation destroying, and will be deployed accordingly. In conjunction with this latter perspective, we might reconsider our doctrine to include fighting with less concern for collateral enemy casualties, and more with concern for US operational effectiveness. If we replace the kid gloves with knuckle dusters, we might find we have enough troops to service our revised task list. -Rurik |
|
Contributed by George Mellinger on December 28, 2006 at 01:35 PM in , , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Nightmare, sorta?
I have a young e-friend in the Army. He's in Ramadi just now, but his unit is down to less than 60 days and counting. I've linked to him before... he is an odd duck to an old fart like myself, but his ass is out there in my place and I respect that down to my toenails.
My excursions to Viet Nam were not linked to the idea of some DEROS thing, his is... as it was for many of you. I don't even know his real name, but he's from Florida. Drop him a comment, I told him to focus so I wouldn't have to bring flowers to his grave. Done that enough. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 27, 2006 at 05:47 PM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Mercenaries?
Mercenary: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service. This Boston Globe article raises some truly fascinating questions (H/T FR):
I have little issue with the idea, save the rather disgusting corollary that we can't expect current American citizens to show up in the numbers needed. Ya know, the idea really supports Kerry's notion that only the young and dumb would choose to serve in the military. We have to seek the 'young and dumber' from other countries to fill our ranks! Much more could be said, but I don't want to see Bill in trouble with the thought police. With Bill's okay... and I've calmed down enough to avoid foul language and general invective. What does it say about a country when it can't find recruits from within? Looking outside for fresh ideas and/or particular expertise makes sense. Looking outside for warriors to protect us is a whole other 'can 'o worms'. There is a spiral forming... maybe even a whirlpool not unlike the swirl of the flushed toilet? Americans eschew firearms and other forms of self defense in favor of dependence on law enforcement. Many Americans don't grasp where their Chicken McNuggets actually come from. It wasn't long ago that a survey of big city kids demonstrated a lack of understanding of where milk came from. We can't field a military without foreign parts and supplies, now we can't field a military without foreign recruits! There's a cold slap in the face coming, 9/11 wasn't enough... what will it take? The very question is enough to send me more fully to survival mode or raise my pessimism to the level of paranoia. "Think of it as evolution in action!" The quote is stolen from "Oath of Fealty", a 1982 novel by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Just giving credit.
That doesn't seem to apply to 'the, fat, dumb, and happy, yearning to do nothing'. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 26, 2006 at 03:52 PM in , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
When in Rome...
Orson Scott Card has an interesting historical analysis up. I'll cut to the chase here, but it the piece should be read in it's entirety.
The process is rooted in specialization. I've been fiddling around the periphery and never put the pieces together as has Card. There's a corollary issue that he doesn't address squarely and that's how the transnational bent of business has directly weakened the west by weakening our military capability. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 23, 2006 at 11:41 AM in , | | | |
|
|
|
So What?
There are a couple curiosities that are causing me trouble. For one: Across the political spectrum there is the notion that our current all volunteer military is the best ever fielded. Also that they're the best educated and motivated. Secondly: There's the notion that our military can defeat anything thrown at them. For the first: In case there is room for misunderstanding, our current military is better educated, but they are no better motivated than any in our past. Except for a very few, every military force we've fielded in the past has been exemplary. For the second: I'm convinced that that our military is undermanned and lacks reserve capability, both manpower and logistic wise, to actually prosecute this war. More importantly they can not prosecute any expansion of consequence. In practical terms... could we stand up a new armored division using only American made components? Can we maintain existing hardware with only American made repair parts? Our current military force is based on fraud! This fraud has nothing, in the least, to do with the earnestness or direct capabilities of the 'boot on the ground' types... or the pilots in their hi-tech aircraft. I lay this at the feet of Rumsfeld and those who supported this odd transnational concept of military supply and demand. Stop and invert the common wisdom with this loose analogy. I own the the finest classic car in the world. To drive it it, though, I need fuel from the middle east, repair/replacement parts from China, and insurance from someone who hates cars. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 15, 2006 at 05:18 PM in , | | | |
|
|
|
Spitting on Soldiers?
H/T to 'Old Fart' in our I don't recollect if one of these incidents has ever been raised to this level before. And normally links, as cited by OF, in many colors and lots of bold face are off-putting. In this case a short Google excursion supports the info. As one who was spit at, not on, I feel it may be time to do something about this, 'Old Fart' offers some ideas. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 13, 2006 at 05:59 PM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
Hmmm, not guilty - I think?
I do not make a habit of cited Blackfive, I figure most read him at least once a day. However, prompted me to comment there, and bring this issue to your attention as well.
I commented, in part:
It amounts to a fascinating replay of historical events. Sadly, it's a replay I've posted about many times in the past. Restrict the military so they can't win then curse them when they don't. It's one of those 'convenient fictions' I referred to Win under 'our' rules or be damned for losing. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 11, 2006 at 06:21 PM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
RE: The End is Near?
Rurik's stirred a few synapses, I opted for a post rather than a comment.
Burying a time capsule and running to the sound of the guns is a fine survivalist sort of plan. I'm in with the concept. But I have trouble translating such fine words into actions, even potential actions. I have pursued a survivalist agenda for over ten years. For me that means being secure in my home. How does that translate to picking up my sword and shield and hurry to the walls of the city? At one time I thought about joining one of the many 'militias' extant. There are those that have no racial or religious basis, but paranoia and age nixed that idea. One idea I've had that gives reality it's due is to pick a state. I'd offer West Virginia... and have every like minded soul move here, hopefully by the thousands. Once we had enough folks to control elections without bloodshed we would do things like authorize a real militia, set term limits, and generally set the agenda for those in the state. The list of possibilities is fascinating. We could put things in our state constitution that would drive the ACLU batty(ier). When confronted with SCOTUS we could hire lawyers to see about seceding. That idea too would be in our state constitution. Readers, that is the sort of thing that could remake Rurik's words into actions. Anything else may be positive, but amounts to frustrating wishful thinking in the final analysis. As a way to go, that will sure beat drooling to death in a nursing home. From my thoughts to Rurik's keyboard! [NOTE] Cross posted to the forum for ease of discussion. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 9, 2006 at 05:11 PM in | | | |
|
|
|
Oh Boy ! BOHICA alert!
Don Surber comments about something I'd missed.
Can anyone visualize how this is a good thing? From the AP:
I can not imagine how to emphasize how WRONG this kind of thinking is! |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 8, 2006 at 07:09 PM in , | | | |
|
|
|
Rumsfeld, The Iraq Study Group, new Democratic hawks
Donald Rumsfeld was an entertaining, and effective SecDef, however, a reasoned case can be made that many of the things that aided his effectiveness were simply wrong in hindsight. It's now clear that we should have been expanding the military since 9/11 and I'm convinced that Rumsfeld played a key role in quashing that endeavor, for instance. I'm not talking about 'the draft', I mean simply upping the monthly and yearly number of recruits. --- Don Surber has a post up that is causing me some concern about The Iraq Study Group
--- Several bloggers have noted that many people (including some Democrats) are talking about There's an old adage about closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out, and maybe this loops back to Rumsfeld. A much bigger issue is where these troops will come from? Applying Occam's leads me to believe there's much more going on here than meets the eye, and that concerns me greatly. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 6, 2006 at 12:05 PM in | | | |
|
|
|
A Convenient Fiction
The Convenient Fiction is a fascinating tool for coping with everyday life. From The Emperor's New Clothes to telling your wife that her new pants do NOT make her ass look fat (even when there are bulges here and there). We all tend to pick the lies we're willing to tell, hear, and/or ignore. Many of these CF's are innocent with few real repercussions, but somewhere along the line they can take on an almost religious aspect. Consider 'gun control'; if we could remove every firearm from the planet in one fell swoop crime would dwindle to nothing. Creating half-assed laws do nothing of the kind. Immigration is good for the country, illegal immigration must be as well. Terrorism is a simple law enforcement issue. The list of dangerous Convenient Fictions seems to be growing daily. I could list dozens, if not hundreds, but the point is that some folks seem lose track of the reality that they are fictions! Indeed, these fictions are stated with a conviction I equate with religious fervor. By the way... a fiction is a lie, it's not a matter of faith like true religious beliefs. Look around some and see Convenient Fictions for what they are. If you see one that is dangerous remember the kid who pointed out that the Emperor was naked. Sometimes the truth wins. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 5, 2006 at 02:11 PM in | | | |
|
|
|
Oh hell!
I send them money, but they have no idea what a Viet Nam vet is? As much as I loathe what Max Cleland has become, he's right on this one.
Well screw that! I respect every veteran that served, even those who have become jackasses, but this is very sad. There's a simple little ribbon: Got it? You're a 'Nam vet! Otherwise you ain't! Gonna be reconsidering my relationship with The Legion. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 3, 2006 at 07:57 PM in | | | |
|
|
|
And then what?
Decurion has a post up that asks a reasonable question. If we pull out of Iraq next year will we be heading back in 10 years or so? I say there's little chance of that happening. There are several variables in play. Saudi Arabia has been exporting Islam quietly for decades, can Iran follow their successful model? If Iran takes control of most of Iraq will the Saudis move militarily? I see the 5 years after our withdrawal with a jaundiced eye.
|
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on December 2, 2006 at 04:27 PM in | | | |
|
|
|
Tranzis
H/T Part of an essay by Tom Kratman.
|
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 30, 2006 at 02:35 PM in , | | | |
|
|
|
Beating a dead horse and/or stating the obvious
As Bill noted Kerry is now one step back from a Presidential wannabe. Every iota of energy expended concerning him is wasted!!! Please folks... allow common sense to reign. Kerry is a trivial thing. We do have a plethora of issues that have more merit. 1 - Will congress turn the next two years into a pool of muddied water? Those are but a tiny enumeration of very real issues facing us. Reality sucks! Want the government to decide who gets health care? Want the government to decide what your kids are taught? Move on... if Kerry gets nominated, or worse Edwards, we will deal with that. But please stop wasting energy on Kerry for now. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 29, 2006 at 04:21 PM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Ask not...
On Friday, January 20, 1961 there was a speech. In closing, JFK offered:
Just words, perhaps, filled with almost archaic meanings, words that could not be uttered now by anyone seeking public office. We'll never know if those great words would have precipitated great deeds. What we do know is that until we find someone to say them again we are in deep trouble. There are great deeds to be done, deeds that do not require polls and politically correct jargon.
|
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 26, 2006 at 02:22 AM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
clarity and stating the obvious
My pal Bud said I shouldn't take a break from posting as noted The issue, as I see it, is a fundamental lack of clarity. Decurion posits a question that actually offers nothing new. Anyone with a general view of the world has long ago considered each item he mentions. What's left? How do we deal with those who have their heads in their nether regions? It's just boring and useless to keep beating the same dead horse. Myself, in the few years I have left, I'm gonna skip preaching to the converted. The rest of the knotheads can deal with reality as they can. My "I told ya so" is not gonna be pretty, but in the short term I will be posting less. Not leaving OWD or the forum. Just not gonna keep repeating myself. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 21, 2006 at 06:43 PM in | | | |
|
|
|
War is the answer, but what is the question?
There is are discussions going on here, in our forum, and elsewhere in the blogosphere concerning 'the draft' or national service. Let me recommend "Starship Troopers" by Heinlein, written in the late 50's. A slightly warped view of the book is
I must admit that I find the idea appealing, however, there is the real world to contend with. "The Draft" has so much baggage attached that it has become a political football more than a practical approach. There is one quite narrow reason to even consider 'the draft' as a tool. That would be a Declaration of War. We could begin by making some changes to the existing Selective Service System. Simply make it a genuine pre-screening process. As it stands it is another useless government bureaucracy. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 20, 2006 at 01:56 PM in , , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Bellwether - revisted
Coupla days ago I about the first milestone on the road to perdition. I note with little joy the next is in sight.
Yammering about about the notion isn't the same as doing the deed, but the door has been opened. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 16, 2006 at 10:19 AM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
Bellwether?
John Bolton's position at the UN looks to be the first milestone on the road to perdition. Don Surber offers this:
Don doesn't go far enough, I think, but he's certainly correct in his analysis concerning what will happen to Bolton. One should ask; will the west actually sacrifice Israel? Israel isn't Mogadishu, after all. Israel will NOT fade into a page 6 story if we bail out. In terms even the liberal/left can understand - Israel will not go quietly to avoid disturbing our 2008 elections. No amount of spin will turn glowing, glassy craters into garden pools. |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 14, 2006 at 01:05 PM in , , , | | | |
|
|
|
Close to the bone
Decurion just lost 3 friends and comrades. See
Many of us have been there, I offered: Here's tae us Wha's like us Damn few, And they're a' deid Mair's the pity When his wife (one tour in Iraq) posted the details. I feel every loss, but some hit closer to home. Drive on, it don't mean nothin' My children love me , but they don't understand And I got a woman who knows her man Drive on, it don't mean nothin', it don't mean nothin', drive on If you have a thought leave it at Decurion's place. |
||
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 13, 2006 at 04:04 PM in , , | | | |
|
|
|
BOHICA - Peace with Honor
I don't watch TV's talking heads, I don't watch TV news. Today I missed something of note: Democrats say will push for Iraq withdrawal.
I jokingly referred to McGovern's plan in an earlier post: I hoped that it was in jest, anyway. [edit] There are dozens of articles like the above. It's not one of my frequent hallucinations. Here's the way this is gonna go down. Looking towards 2008 Bush, et al, will cave in to the Democrats. As we pull out of of Iraq the bad guys will sit on their hands, or be arming and training. At some point Congress will reduce funding and support for the Iraqis. In under 2 years we will be out of Iraq and it will collapse. Thousands will die or be re-integrated into 'proper' Muslim thinking. It will be noted as a defeat for America. Those who served will be considered losers, Kerry has already set the foundation... they're dumb hicks anyway. I've heard this story somewhere before??? |
|
Contributed by Zero Ponsdorf on November 12, 2006 at 04:04 PM in , , | | | |