Interesting column in the Dallas Fort Worth areaStar Telegram. The author quotes a Newsweek article "I've been all over the world in the last year, and almost every country I've visited has felt humiliated by this administration." Upon reading this a little light went off in the dark recesses of what passes for my brain. The lack of support for this war are the chickens coming home to roost for the U.S. gov't, and specifically for this administration.
Bush is running this company like a private corporation, he's the CEO, and the cabinet is the board of trustees. In the world of business if someone is not a team player there are a dozen people lined up to take their corner office. In the world of business if a vendor cuts a better deal with a competitor, you renegotiate or you find a new vendor. On the other hand, if you are a large enough company, then you can treat a vendor horribly, but they'll keep coming back because they can't afford to lose your business. Bush's oft quoted saying, "If you're not with us, you're against us" comes from the belief that if you're not affecting the bottom line in a positive way, then you're dead meat to be cut away before you rot out the rest of the profits.
In the world of foreign affairs the rules of the business world do not apply (It's more like a playground, as I'll get to later). You can only treat a trading parter like a vendor for so long before it begins to chafe. And if you treat them horribly, refusing to play by the rules (Kyoto, World Court, Steel tariffs, etc), eventually they're going to cut you out of the deal.
Bush's administration isn't the only U.S. regime to play this way. I think we're reaping what we've sown since the Nixon administration. All our attempts at "nation building" through supporting despots, anti-communist thugs, death squads, muslim extremists, etc... are coming back to haunt us. The world has finally decided they don't like the rules of our game and they refuse to play anymore. Blair is like the bully's sidekick who holds the playground victim while the bully pulverizes them and steals their lunch. He sticks by the bully because he knows that in the past, that has always been the safest place to be. But in the new playground, where the rules have changed and the rest of the kids have banded together against the bully, even the sidekick can't last for long before changing sides.
The ol' U.S. of A. will soon be alone on the playground, ignored by the other kids (even worse than a fight, where we at least have a chance to pass out some black eyes), and isolated from the only system that might assist us (in this case the UN and the World Trade Organization, both of which the Bush administration has chosen to piss off).
Sunday, March 30, 2003
It's a slow news day today. But it gives me a chance to reflect on how lucky I think the U.S. and its military has been. First of all, it has been 12 days since Bush's ultimatum to Hussein and so far we've escaped any terrorism on our shores or against our holdings overseas. I'm sure some of this can be attributed to the skill of our anti-terrorism forces (FBI, CIA, etc), but the complete lack of any attack makes me think we’ve been over estimating Hussein’s ability to strike out either through their supposed friends Al-Queda or other agents. If so, then we’ve lost some of the justification for this war. I hope I’m not proven wrong on this point.
Second, I think the U.S. and U.K. forces have been tremendously lucky so far. Iraq has had 12 years to prepare for this invasion and we’ve provided him juicy targets by stringing out our supply lines over 300 plus miles. Although the news may be suppressed, I haven’t heard of a single gas tanker being blown up (they’re not armored at all). So far, only one car bomb. But this tactic will be much more effective once foot patrols enter cities that have supposedly been pacified. Hussein should have been building tunnels and bomb shelters throughout the region where his troops could pop out and ambush allied forces supply lines. Instead, they are sending ‘technical’ vehicles in suicide missions against tanks.
Quotes from the brave men of the U.S. and U.K. forces indicate that it is a totally one sided battle out there. In interviews on CNN and MSNBC commanders recount dozens of men rushing them with small arms and grenades (both useless against our armor) only to be cut down instantly. To me these are very sad instances. I’m reminded of the movie Zulu where tens of thousands of Zulu warriors throw themselves at a small group of British soldiers time and again only to be slaughtered on each approach. In that movie, the Zulus eventually retreated leaving thousands dead on the battle field, but most lived to fight again another day. I hope the Iraqi forces will soon do the same thing.
But I doubt they ever will retreat. Most of those behind the fighting belong to the Baath party or other leadership groups. They are the ones who will be tried for war crimes and who will suffer the most in the rebuilt Iraq. They have little to lose by fighting. I ask you to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine a Red Dawn scenario. Would you not want to pick up arms and revolt somehow. You wouldn’t just capitulate and start to study Russian or Chinese (as the case might be), no you’d find someway to fight. The reports of people returning to Iraq from across the region to pick up arms are truly frightening. If for some reason Bush decides we need to go into Syria or Iran then this becomes a whole different story (see my earlier post).
Lately, the word from the Pentagon is that they are expecting Baghdad, meaning the leadership, to crumble from the inside. They must have some sort of intel that leads them to believe that. But I hope it is stronger intel then that which made them believe the regime would crumble after a little operation called ‘Shock and Awe’. The worst thing, casualty wise, for the U.S. and U.K. forces would be a door to door street fight in Baghdad and Tikrit, but it might take that for real regime change to occur. But if the regime fails to crumble we have little choice than to lay siege to the Hussein strongholds or to surround them, interdict all food and water, and wait them out. Either way we suffer greatly in world opinion. Sieges are bloody things on both sides, and starvation campaigns will hurt the very people we are trying to help the most first. Militarily we might be winning this war, but politically, we might already be in a quagmire many times larger than Vietnam ever was.
My greatest wish is for this war to be resolved quickly and the slaughter be over. As I read around the net (the sites to read are: TPM, The Agonist, DailyKos, Counterspin, Tacitus, and Body and Soul) I see very little hope that the end is near. If the Pentagon has a plan to end this war, I hope they implement it soon, and prove us all wrong.
Second, I think the U.S. and U.K. forces have been tremendously lucky so far. Iraq has had 12 years to prepare for this invasion and we’ve provided him juicy targets by stringing out our supply lines over 300 plus miles. Although the news may be suppressed, I haven’t heard of a single gas tanker being blown up (they’re not armored at all). So far, only one car bomb. But this tactic will be much more effective once foot patrols enter cities that have supposedly been pacified. Hussein should have been building tunnels and bomb shelters throughout the region where his troops could pop out and ambush allied forces supply lines. Instead, they are sending ‘technical’ vehicles in suicide missions against tanks.
Quotes from the brave men of the U.S. and U.K. forces indicate that it is a totally one sided battle out there. In interviews on CNN and MSNBC commanders recount dozens of men rushing them with small arms and grenades (both useless against our armor) only to be cut down instantly. To me these are very sad instances. I’m reminded of the movie Zulu where tens of thousands of Zulu warriors throw themselves at a small group of British soldiers time and again only to be slaughtered on each approach. In that movie, the Zulus eventually retreated leaving thousands dead on the battle field, but most lived to fight again another day. I hope the Iraqi forces will soon do the same thing.
But I doubt they ever will retreat. Most of those behind the fighting belong to the Baath party or other leadership groups. They are the ones who will be tried for war crimes and who will suffer the most in the rebuilt Iraq. They have little to lose by fighting. I ask you to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine a Red Dawn scenario. Would you not want to pick up arms and revolt somehow. You wouldn’t just capitulate and start to study Russian or Chinese (as the case might be), no you’d find someway to fight. The reports of people returning to Iraq from across the region to pick up arms are truly frightening. If for some reason Bush decides we need to go into Syria or Iran then this becomes a whole different story (see my earlier post).
Lately, the word from the Pentagon is that they are expecting Baghdad, meaning the leadership, to crumble from the inside. They must have some sort of intel that leads them to believe that. But I hope it is stronger intel then that which made them believe the regime would crumble after a little operation called ‘Shock and Awe’. The worst thing, casualty wise, for the U.S. and U.K. forces would be a door to door street fight in Baghdad and Tikrit, but it might take that for real regime change to occur. But if the regime fails to crumble we have little choice than to lay siege to the Hussein strongholds or to surround them, interdict all food and water, and wait them out. Either way we suffer greatly in world opinion. Sieges are bloody things on both sides, and starvation campaigns will hurt the very people we are trying to help the most first. Militarily we might be winning this war, but politically, we might already be in a quagmire many times larger than Vietnam ever was.
My greatest wish is for this war to be resolved quickly and the slaughter be over. As I read around the net (the sites to read are: TPM, The Agonist, DailyKos, Counterspin, Tacitus, and Body and Soul) I see very little hope that the end is near. If the Pentagon has a plan to end this war, I hope they implement it soon, and prove us all wrong.
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Cold Fury is afraid that the Christian groups who will enter Iraq to provide aid to the Iraqi people might do more harm than good.
Don't forget, Iraq is home to a large christian group. Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister (ex-foreign minister) is the highest ranking christian in Iraq. So, I'm sure there will be groups of christians welcoming aid from people with a like religion. That said, 'persuading people', should it happen, is very last century and should be avoided.
Don't forget, Iraq is home to a large christian group. Tariq Aziz, Deputy Prime Minister (ex-foreign minister) is the highest ranking christian in Iraq. So, I'm sure there will be groups of christians welcoming aid from people with a like religion. That said, 'persuading people', should it happen, is very last century and should be avoided.
The inclination towards tyranny, the wielding of absolute power by the few over the many, knows no ideological boundaries and is not confined to one time or space. I never trust anyone who says: "It can't happen here." Otherwise ethical people will commit the most serious injuries as long as they believe they are doing their "duty" - committing these injuries in a good cause. Lenin was not alone in believing that the end justifies the means: lots of people believe it, or act as if they do. It takes bravery of a different sort to maintain that the means defines the end: risk it during a time of high group stress and you're likely to be called naive, or a traitor.
- Margaret Atwood writing about her book The Handmaid's Tale, recently made into an Opera.
- Margaret Atwood writing about her book The Handmaid's Tale, recently made into an Opera.
If one of the goals is to win the hearts and minds of the Arab Street, then according to this story we've already lost the war.
Reports of Booing in the France section of Disneyland's it's a small world. Will the madness ever stop?
Friday, March 28, 2003
Quote to remember:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster
Boy. I'm full of ideas tonight.
Steven Johnson posts that whatever the U.S. spends invading Iraq, it should be forced to spend rebuilding the country. An idea I'm not totally against. However, why even go through the invading step. If each year we invested $85-100 billion dollars building infrastructure, education, and industry in 3 or 4 needful countries in exchange for separation of church and state, freedom of speech, the right to representation... (you get the idea), I guarantee we will quickly see countries lining up to 'reform' and get a piece of the pie, and if they leaders aren't willing to, then the people will revolt (at which point we send in our forces to assist). The EU could do the same thing if they desire a balance in world economic power. Not only would this be cheaper than waging war, it will build the world economy and in turn, our economy.
Steven Johnson posts that whatever the U.S. spends invading Iraq, it should be forced to spend rebuilding the country. An idea I'm not totally against. However, why even go through the invading step. If each year we invested $85-100 billion dollars building infrastructure, education, and industry in 3 or 4 needful countries in exchange for separation of church and state, freedom of speech, the right to representation... (you get the idea), I guarantee we will quickly see countries lining up to 'reform' and get a piece of the pie, and if they leaders aren't willing to, then the people will revolt (at which point we send in our forces to assist). The EU could do the same thing if they desire a balance in world economic power. Not only would this be cheaper than waging war, it will build the world economy and in turn, our economy.
Mac posts the following in the comments section at The Agonist:
...the idea of such a preliminary strike is an "aggressive war" since we're attacking a country that has not attacked us nor has threatened to do so. This is in "material breach" of the UN Charter and ironically violates the very language we originally crafted; so we now have international war criminals running our country, which suggests the real reason for our withdrawal from the World Court in the Hague.
The use of "preliminary strikes" also sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What other members of the so-called "Axis of Evil" may now be thinking that a "preliminary strike" against us is now reasonable given our threatening stance against them? For that matter, what about other nations that have severely strained relations, such as Pakistan and India?
Saddam is a deadly despot, and removing him from power is a good thing. In this case it's clear that the end does not in any way justify the means. By engaging in this illegal aggressive war we probably have opened a Pandora's Box that ultimately may have deadly repercussions all over the world. The ultimate death toll may make the misery exacted by Saddam's death squads and torture chambers negligible by comparison.
The second paragraph makes me think of an interesting point. By launching a preliminary strike we are essentially declaring war against the world. At any point another country feels threatened by the ol U.S. of A.(and the launch of a preliminary strike would certainly threaten me if I was Korea) all they have to is claim the 'Bush Doctrine' and launch a preliminary strike instead. There is no mutual destruction assurance here as along as only convential weapons are used, so they old cold war boundaries are completely gone. It's enough to make one paranoid (which might explain a lot of Washington DC's actions these days).
...the idea of such a preliminary strike is an "aggressive war" since we're attacking a country that has not attacked us nor has threatened to do so. This is in "material breach" of the UN Charter and ironically violates the very language we originally crafted; so we now have international war criminals running our country, which suggests the real reason for our withdrawal from the World Court in the Hague.
The use of "preliminary strikes" also sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What other members of the so-called "Axis of Evil" may now be thinking that a "preliminary strike" against us is now reasonable given our threatening stance against them? For that matter, what about other nations that have severely strained relations, such as Pakistan and India?
Saddam is a deadly despot, and removing him from power is a good thing. In this case it's clear that the end does not in any way justify the means. By engaging in this illegal aggressive war we probably have opened a Pandora's Box that ultimately may have deadly repercussions all over the world. The ultimate death toll may make the misery exacted by Saddam's death squads and torture chambers negligible by comparison.
The second paragraph makes me think of an interesting point. By launching a preliminary strike we are essentially declaring war against the world. At any point another country feels threatened by the ol U.S. of A.(and the launch of a preliminary strike would certainly threaten me if I was Korea) all they have to is claim the 'Bush Doctrine' and launch a preliminary strike instead. There is no mutual destruction assurance here as along as only convential weapons are used, so they old cold war boundaries are completely gone. It's enough to make one paranoid (which might explain a lot of Washington DC's actions these days).
The Scotsman paints a picture of Iraq's likely guerrilla tactics and how they will draw out this war. The longer the war goes on, the more likely the scenarios in my previous post will come to pass. Frightening.
The scenario described on Tacitus is what frightens me the 2nd most (almost as much as a second war erupting in Korea which will no doubt happen if our forces become stretched too thin in the mid-east). If we call up all our reserves we certainly have enough manpower to fight Iraq, Iran and Syria/Lebanon at the same time. Israel will certainly get involved and that means we're suddenly fighting the whole region and guess what, we're surrounded. Our ships will be stuck in easy to target waterways. Our ground forces will not all be able to receive air support at the same time (especially during any sand storms). Nor will our ground forces be able to receive new supplies as quickly (and we are already stretched out and supplies can be slow). Our JDAM munitions will have to be managed and targets chosen carefully or we will run out of them. Our existing bases in Arabic countries will suddenly find themselves in hostile territory (CENTCOM will have to quicly relocate).
The second war front is even more frightening. By the time we are able to get a significant number of ground forces to Korea, they will occupy the whole pennensula having overrun our troops (with a tremendous loss of life) and leveled Soeul (again tremendous loss of life). We will have to invade from the sea again using some of the same Marines forces currently involved in the mid-east right now. (Again terrible loss of life.) Chances are that China will become involved as well, probably against their will (they would like to have another 10 years of technological developement before they plan to confront the US), but they cannot be seen as impartial to the U.S. fighting so close to their border.
Suddenly we are in WWIII. The good news is that while Russia can probably claim neutrality because of the geographic location, the rest of Europe will be forced to choose sides and will most likely join up with the western allies. The $75-150 billion this war is likely to cost will triple or quadruple, which will provide exactly the kind of stimulus the economy needs right now. If you can't find a job, the defense industry will always be hiring, that is if you aren't drafted first. President Jeb Bush will declare the policies of his assassinated brother a grand success as the world tumbles into darkness.
Of course, maybe that's all just doom and gloom. I certainly hope so.
The second war front is even more frightening. By the time we are able to get a significant number of ground forces to Korea, they will occupy the whole pennensula having overrun our troops (with a tremendous loss of life) and leveled Soeul (again tremendous loss of life). We will have to invade from the sea again using some of the same Marines forces currently involved in the mid-east right now. (Again terrible loss of life.) Chances are that China will become involved as well, probably against their will (they would like to have another 10 years of technological developement before they plan to confront the US), but they cannot be seen as impartial to the U.S. fighting so close to their border.
Suddenly we are in WWIII. The good news is that while Russia can probably claim neutrality because of the geographic location, the rest of Europe will be forced to choose sides and will most likely join up with the western allies. The $75-150 billion this war is likely to cost will triple or quadruple, which will provide exactly the kind of stimulus the economy needs right now. If you can't find a job, the defense industry will always be hiring, that is if you aren't drafted first. President Jeb Bush will declare the policies of his assassinated brother a grand success as the world tumbles into darkness.
Of course, maybe that's all just doom and gloom. I certainly hope so.
Thursday, March 27, 2003
As more of our troops are being deployed to the mid-east, I am left wondering at what point do we have to re-instate the draft? The seems to be a general consensus that we can handle a two front war (Iraq and N. Korea) with no problem. But without the involvement of other allies, what do we do if a third front (Syria, Iran, Indonesia, etc...) opens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)