A War on Terror? Really?

I see the "war on terrorism" as a nebulous concept, much like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty." It really accomplishes nothing, but it makes us feel better if we declare "war" on something. I am not saying that there is not a real threat, but think about it. The way in which we are conducting this "war" is pretty lame.

What is the end-game? Does anybody think that - like drugs or poverty - terrorism will ever completely go away? There are muslims - over 1 billion of them - in just about every country in the world. Assuming that we killed each and every one of them, do you really think that will be the end of it? There will always be somebody to take their place; nature abhors a vacuum.

So, if we want to minimize the threat and impact of terrorist activities, there are much better and more efficient ways to do it. Iraq was and is a joke. Give it another ten to twenty years and it will return to being another tribal shithole in need of another strong-arm dictator like Saddam to keep them all in check, and we will have wasted over a trillion dollars and a few thousand lives of our military brothers and sisters for, well, nothing. Yeah, sure, Iraq was a minor logistical player in the overall scheme of things, but if we want to nullify the financial support for terrorist activities - cut off the head of the snake, so to speak - given by various nations we would be much better off going after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and maybe a few others. But we don't and won't - and I think we all know why - so we're not really that serious.

And Afghanistan, please. OK, we went there originally to try to get Osama. Personally, I think he may be long since dead, but announcing that to the world would would not give us much of a leg to stand on in remaining there. As long as the illusion of him still being the grand mastermind is perpetuated, we grant ourselves license to stay as long as we feel is necessary. But why are we still there? Afghanistan is barely out of the stone age. They cannot directly, as a nation, export much of anything. So, what is the real threat from that country?

OPIUM.

The Taliban are nothing more than medieval overlords, draconian drug peddlers of poppy production. The money generated from opium poppy production is used to fund training and deployment of terrorist activity around the world, so why are we not targeting poppy fields and spraying them with napalm on a daily basis?

Nailed It!

Hat-tip: Don

Obamageddon - What Could be on the Horizon with Afghanistan and/or Iran

I really don't have much to add to this article. I've snipped most of the relevant stuff, but read the whole thing to get the links contained within and to watch the Fox News interview with economist Gerald Celente. Large text emphases are mine

An American president is launching the most ambitious, the most expensive, and certainly the most dangerous military campaign since the Vietnam War—and the antiwar movement, such as it is, is missing in action. After a long and bloody campaign in Iraq and the election of a U.S. president pledged to get us out, our government is once again revving up its war machine and taking aim at yet another “terrorist” stronghold, this time in Afghanistan. Yet the antiwar movement’s motor seems stuck in the wrong gear, making no motions toward mounting anything like an effective protest. What gives?

We shouldn’t doubt the scope of the present war effort. Make no mistake: the Obama administration is radically ramping up the stakes in the “war on terrorism,” which, though renamed, has not been revised downward, as the Washington Post reports:

"As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.”
{snip}
As the economic crisis escalates and the debt-based central banking system shows it can no longer re-inflate the bubble by creating assets out of thin air, an economic and political rationale for war is easy to come by; for if the Keynesian doctrine that government spending is the only way to lift us out of an economic depression is true, then surely military expenditures are the quickest way to inject “life” into a failing system. This doesn’t work, economically, since the crisis is only masked by the wartime atmosphere of emergency and “temporary” privation. Politically, however, it is a lifesaver for our ruling elite, which is at pains to deflect blame away from itself and on to some “foreign” target.

It’s the oldest trick in the book, and it’s being played out right before our eyes, as the U.S. prepares to send even more troops to the Afghan front and is threatening Iran with draconian economic sanctions, a step or two away from outright war.

A looming economic depression and the horrific prospect of another major war – the worst-case scenario seems to be unfolding, like a recurring nightmare, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop it. Are we caught, then, helpless in the web of destiny, to be preyed upon by those spiders in Washington?
{snip}
History has shown that Afghanistan is practically unconquerable, and we could send an army of a million or more and still fail miserably. But think how the endless expenditures will “stimulate” our economy!

Pay attention to this part.

Our current foreign policy of global hegemonism and unbridled aggression is simply not sustainable, not when we are on the verge of becoming what we used to call a Third World country, one that is bankrupt and faces the prospect of a radical lowering of living standards. Unless, of course, the “crisis” atmosphere can be sustained almost indefinitely.

Sound familiar? "1984"?..."Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. No, wait, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. No, wait, Oceania has always been at war with..."

It is said that FDR’s New Deal didn’t get us out of the Great Depression, but World War II did. The truth is that, in wartime, when people are expected to sacrifice for the duration of the “emergency,” economic problems are anesthetized out of existence by liberal doses of nationalist chest-beating and moral righteousness. Shortages and plunging living standards were masked by a wartime rationing system and greatly lowered expectations. And just as World War II inured us to the economic ravages wrought by our thieving elites, so World War III will provide plenty of cover for a virtual takeover of all industry by the government and the demonization of all political opposition as “terrorist.”

An impossible science-fictional scenario? Or a reasonable projection of present trends? Celente, whose record of predictions is impressive, to say the least, sees war with Iran as the equivalent of World War III, with economic, social, and political consequences that will send what is left of our empire into a tailspin. This is the popping of the “hyperpower” bubble, the conceit that we – the last superpower left standing – will somehow defy history and common sense and avoid the fate of all empires: decline and fall.

Could Afghanistan become Obama's Iraq? It's possible, if not probable, given that he has driven us further into debt and has plans for driving us further so; given that he has no qualms about national takeovers of corporations like GM and the banking industry. He could make it work with the politics of personality. That is, with his "kept whores" in the media, it could be sold to his unwavering sycophants on the left. Then we will see the "true colors" of the so-called anti-war crowd - that is, will all the anti-war protesters during the Bush era be out yelling in the streets, or were they "anti-war" because they were anti-Bush?

Time will tell, but things could get very interesting. Sleep tight.

Some Thoughts on the Iraq Pull-out

No, it's not a new birth control technique.

Ok, so the Iraq draw-down has begun. The lefties, the MSM, the America haters et.al. are having multiple orgasms over that, but they are not alone. While I and many, many others like myself feel nothing that resembles erotic stimulation, however, I am happy to see it as well, and before we go any further, let's get a few things on the table right now. What may appear to be negative in the analysis is not directed at the troops - far from it, as anybody who "knows" me can attest to. Our men and women on the ground, in the air, and on the seas have paid a very high price, and they deserve our unwavering respect for doing what they signed-up to do - follow orders. With that said, I have had a problem with our US foreign policy for quite some time, regardless of the administration, regardless of the situation or location. For the record, along with every male in my family since WWII, I was a "troop" (USMC), having been on the wrong end of rifles, RPGs, and a few machetes. Semper Fi.

Far too often we have sent our young men (and of late, women) half-way around the world to "defend democracy" or "fight for our freedoms back home," and, frankly, that is just complete rubbish. That is a sales pitch to engender support from "the folks." Indeed, it would be a lot more difficult to "sell" such actions abroad to the American people if the "real" reasons were told; hell, in many cases it would have been strategically foolhardy to do so. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples. Do you really think our government gives two shits about democracy in either of those places? Believe what you want, but the answer is "no." WE backed Saddam in his war against Iran, knowing full well how he came to power (hint: it was not through anything that resembles the democratic process) and the kind of leader he was. WE backed the mujahadeen/mujahideen in Afghanistan, led in no small part by Osama Bin Laden, in their war against the Soviets. And the argument is valid that the Machiavellian principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applied in dealing with what was known or believed at the time to be a greater threat in both cases. Look at a map of the region, and you will see that both Iraq and Afghanistan are strategically situated for a variety of purposes. In an attempt to secure "friendly" regimes (and I use that term loosely) in both places one can conjure several scenarios, but I submit with a good deal of certainty that concern for the plight of the people in the face of tyranny and oppression is not one of them.

One could argue that the long range goals of politicians and their lap dog barracks-grade officers at the Pentagon would have positive residual effects for the welfare of the people and the security of the US, but the field-grade officers and their NCOs know that those long range plans seldom (if ever) go as planned given that short-term plans on the battlefield more often than not go awry as soon as the boots hit the ground. Just ask US Army General (Ret.) Hal Moore, Korean War veteran and innaugural commander (Colonel at the time) of the then-newly-formed Army Air Cav, how he felt before and after the initial battle at Ia Drang in Vietnam (the first "official" battle in which LBJ revealed full US commitment there). You would have gotten the same answer from the late, legendary USMC Gen. "Chesty" Puller, Patton, and even that psychotic loser, Custer (who learned the hard way): Plans are nothing; planning is everything; and when all that fails, those who can adapt best by drawing from historical precedent and instinct to the fluid nature of combat will prevail. Which brings us to the central theme of the argument.

Why do we who value and hold dear our freedom and liberty feel as we do? Because we know it did not come easily. It was not given to us. It was earned, fought and paid for with blood and countless lives of our forebearers. I am speaking specifically about our Revolution and the birth of our Nation, but we cannot forget the massive loss of life our nation endured during the War Between the States, better known as the Civil War (or, as some still call it, the War of Northern Aggression). To a lesser extent in terms of defense of our liberty (not in terms of sacrifice and loss of life and blood) WWI comes into play (although our security was not really at risk), as does WWII, the last war fought in defense of our liberty. Let me stress again that the sacrifice of those who fought in Korea and Vietnam was no less noble or honorable than any of those who came before or since; only that, through no fault of their own, what they fought and died for had nothing to do with preserving our liberty. The point here is that we have paid for our liberty with countless sacrifice.

Why, then, should we believe that we can "give" freedom, liberty, or democracy to those who have not or are not willing to fight and die for it themselves? Can anybody point to a case in history where that has been successful in the long term?

WARNING: Harsh language to follow.

I hope that I am wrong, but I don't give Iraq very long. "Yay, Saddam is gone!" "Woo-Hoo! The dictator is dead!" - Big fucking deal; there will be ten others lining up to take his place, starting with that fuck Muqtada al Sadr. And there are dozens more around the world. Fuck them all. And this is where I get very upset. I see these guys (and women too) all blown to shit, as I recently watched on this special, "Home from Iraq", hosted by James Gandolfini. It wasn't skewed, biased, or anything else. These men and women spoke openly, not complaining, and Gandolfini listened, offering very little input, except for hugs and handshakes after each interview. I cried, watching these folks with no arms, no legs, faces blown apart, one with a plate in his fucking head, reduced to speaking like a child. You know why I cried, clenching my fists, unable to speak to my wife or face my step-children for the rest of the night? Because I know that these men and women (yeah, one woman was in a convoy and took an RPG right through the shoulder) suffered the unthinkable terrors of war for nothing. It's a long bow to draw to say that they suffer and the other 4,000 some-odd have died defending our freedom and security. Bullshit. That's for the cheerleaders at Fox and other chickenhawks to spew. And the only other ones who piss me off more than them are the America haters at CNN, MSNBC, NYT, LA Times, WaPo, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN, and the various foreign media and government officials (not to mention our own lefties and America haters in Congress) who bemoan the deaths of Iraqi civilians and paint our guys and gals as baby killers and torturers.

I don't want to see another one of our folks blown to shit, regardless of how proud they are, unless it's in DIRECT defense of our liberty and our nation, not some half-assed, concocted justification or after-the-fact rationalization that soothsayers use to make us feel better.

You really want to help the Iraqis and now, perhaps, the Iranians? Pick a side, and give them weapons to fight for their own freedom. Oh, wait, that's just what got us into this mess in the first place. Leaving them alone isn't the answer, either. That's what the past 30 years have gotten us to now. No, the only options I see as viable are to either blow them all to hell, or selectively assassinate key personnel and destroy hideouts using Special Ops. I just know that massive use of military force to "win hearts and minds" has been tried before, and each time it has failed.

Good luck to the Iraqis. They'll need it.

A Tale of Two Ironies

This from the Southland Times:

Invercargill, New Zealand

Sisters Natalie Bennie and Tamara Shefa were upset after being booted out of the Mevlana Cafe in Esk St yesterday by owner Mustafa Tekinkaya.

They chose to eat at Mevlana Cafe because it had a play area for Mrs Bennie's two children, but they were told to leave before they had ordered any food, Mrs Bennie said.

"He heard us speaking Hebrew and he asked us where we were from. I said Israel and he said 'get out, I am not serving you'. It was shocking."

Mr Tekinkaya, who is Muslim and from Turkey, said he was making his own protest against Israel because it was killing innocent babies and women in the Gaza Strip.

"I have decided as a protest not to serve Israelis until the war stops."

He said he had nothing against Israeli people but if any more came into his shop they would also be told to leave, and he was not concerned if he lost business.

After my initial reaction of disgust, I found it highly ironic that here's this muslim Turk banning an Israeli in protest of Israel's actions against the Palestinians in Gaza when, until 90 years ago, his native country occupied that same area (and then some) for hundreds of years. I wonder how he feels about that and how he would have felt were he alive then. Something tells me he would not have given a rat's ass about the plight of the Palestinians, but now that non-muslims are in charge - Jews, no less - well, that's different.

That's irony number 1. Here's irony number 2.

When this incident happened last week, I was going to simply write about how the Middle East mess has tentacles that reach even here, to New Zealand, a tiny little country at the bottom of the world with no dog in that fight and of little significance in affecting any meaningful change there. Then, as I began doing a little more sourcing, I found this blog entry and began reading the comments. As I read through them (all 180-something at the time), an interesting issue came to the surface: Property rights. One commenter stated that, although he found the cafe owner's behavior appalling, he finds the anti-discrimination laws more appalling, and on that basis he had to side with the cafe owner. I have to agree. Let me explain.

First, consider this statement from Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres:

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation in Palestine, it is simply against the law for providers of goods and services in New Zealand to discriminate in this way."

Respect for private, individual property rights are at the foundation of Western civilization. ANY move away from that principal is a step toward a more collectivist, communist society, and that is more of an affront to human or civil "rights" than is being denied service at a private establishment. It's his property, and he should be able to deny service to anybody for any reason. Any law that contradicts that right flies directly in the face of respect for private property rights. The only thing that matters is that the buyer is willing and able to pay for the goods and/or services, and the seller is willing to provide them. Now, if you believe that racial, religious or any other kind of discrimination is morally wrong, then vote with your wallet and choose not to do business with that establishment. If enough people feel the same way, he will either have to change his tune or face going out of business. That, I believe, is the way to affect change - NOT by demanding that government enact laws that prohibit certain behaviors or actions which, however reprehensible, do not deny others their rights.

One does not have the "right" to walk into a private establishment and demand service, but the current law in New Zealand and most elsewhere in the West has made it so. We have betrayed one principal for another, denied one set of rights and granted another set. The equation is out of balance. Where these civil and human rights laws go wrong is that they don't just stop with regulating how government institutions and agencies - those in the public sector - conduct themselves. They go that one step too far into the private sector.

I know this is a difficult concept for some to grasp, but it really is simple. Is racist behavior wrong? I believe it is, but as long as it does not deny somebody their right to life, liberty, or their own property, it should not be illegal. Do I think the guy is a complete asshole? You bet. But I believe he has the right to be an asshole, the right to be wrong - and suffer the consequences for it; not by government mandate, but by the people themselves in any form that does not involve violence, coercion, or destruction of property.

Cut the Crap Already - Rant

If I hear one more complaint about the "massacre" of Palestinian women and children in Gaza at the hands of the IDF; one more whinge about "genocide," "illegal occupation of stolen land," or "indigenous rights" I'm gonna puke.

Let's be very clear here. The stolen land idea is bullshit, and if that is what you believe, then you are a fucking idiot. Go back and learn the history you were never taught in school, and don't even waste my time.

This is an ongoing struggle that cyclically erupts into violence - a never ending cycle of violence, followed by some third party-negotiated cease fire, and then it begins again, usually with Hamas indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel or sending some deluded, illiterate, brainwashed, wild-eyed jihadi into a pizza parlor in Tel Aviv with a vest full of explosives and nails and God knows what for shrapnel and feces or medical waste to cause infection in open wounds for maximum effect - deliberately targeting civilians. Israel responds with the sophisticated weapons they have at their disposal, targeting key Palestinian personnel and infrastructure, doing their best to minimize civilian casualties. If one considers the full capabilities of the IDF, I can't for the life of me understand how anybody can see it any other way. They are either blinded by ignorance or ideology or both. If you believe that the IDF is committing genocide or any of that other bloodbath mantra, then you are even more of an idiot. If that were Israel's real intent they could literally within a matter of days turn Gaza and the West Bank into a parking lot and kill every living thing there with a massive, indiscriminate bombardment of the area using only conventional weapons. Done. Game Over.

That obviously is not what is happening, so why do libs and leftards continue to parrot this lie? For some I know it is simple Jew hatred. I have had many arguments where, after much dancing around about being for the underdog and disenfranchised, that has come out in the end. Fine, at least they have taken a side. For others it comes down to ignorance. For others yet, to them all that matters is who is losing; they are the victims no matter who started it. Christ, I heard some moron the other day who not only thinks that Hamas is the victim and the Israelis are the aggressors, but also believes that the media portrays it just the opposite, turning world opinion against the Palestinians.

And this idea of "disproportionate response" is another crock of shit. Hamas brought a knife to a gunfight. Too bad, so sad. Hamas, like those who have come before them, has chosen violence; hell, that's why the Palestinians voted for them, to take it to the Israelis. Now that they have, firing rockets from schools, mosques, wherever, and uses the same for shelter, hiding behind their own women and children, Hamas and their sympathizers cry "foul." It's so predictable that it seems scripted. Their sympathizers hold the Israelis accountable for firing back anyway, knowing this, but nobody calls Hamas on the carpet for being more "wrong" by putting up those innocents as human shields to begin with. But the media will not confront that issue. Far be it for them to let objectivity get in the way of ideology or, more accurately, a good, "if it bleeds, it leads" story. Cue the professional mourners and victims.

And while I'm at it, what is with these daily "union breaks" for "humanitarian aid" to reach the civilians? Is this combat or a sporting match? I'm telling you right now, if war becomes sanitized to the point where it is just accepted and regulated in some perverse way, then we run more of a risk of more of these perpetual conflicts. War is hell, and it should remain that way if for no other reason than to be a constant reminder that it should be a last resort. When it's on, however, then it's ALL ON. No quarter, no mercy. One must be ready to escalate to any level necessary to win, and winning is defined as the point where your enemy surrenders unconditionally or risks facing complete, total annihilation.