Bhutto

My only comments until I return are:

• The West underestimates what this has done to the people, especially the poor in Pakistan
• Pakistan is notorious for switching horses in midstream
• India is on high alert
• The most dangerous place in the world just became much more dangerous

See ya in a few!

Don't spread lies

I am just as riled up against radical Islam as the next red-blooded American, but I don't see any need to lie about shit. Being honest is an American virtue. Playing with numbers and making cute little arguments about numbers that probably never existed is a Continental virtue.

So here's the lie. That the four young souls who needlessly lost their life in Colorado the other day account for more "hate crimes" than all the "hate crimes" attributed to muslims since 9/11. I suppose the lie-originator wants to make the point that Christians are just as persecuted as Muslims. Which no one was ever really getting into anways. ANd besides, who in the hell is this lie-originator to be making a cheap political point about the death of some innocent, young, and from what the reports, altogether terrific people! Its sick. Just sick that you can't let someone die in a tragedy without trying to make some greater point. People who do that aren't understanding that human life is more valuable than political prowess.

But to make things all the worse. Tdaxp says the lie is true. ANd that if you don't agree, its up to you to prove it. Alright, I'll bite, with the understanding that I'm only doing it for fun.

The Human Rights Watch has chronicled all the attacks in the year after 9/11. They document three murders positively ID'd as motivated by 9/11 backlash, and four more murders that were likely motivated by 9/11 backlash. They also document 49 assaults and 249 assaults and property damage from 9/11 through Feb '02, all 9/11 backlash.

They also document multiple reports of places of worship being vandalized, including a Mosque in Oswego, NY being burnt to the ground on 11/29/2001. The teenage arsonists stated they thought the worshipers were followers of Bin Laden.

You can read the document and track down its extensive sourcing here.

FWIW, I'd bet at least one good green American dollar that there are a LOT more incidents of backlash than that little report pulled up. We don't stand by and wait for the government to take care of things in this country when the shit hits the fan. We hit back. Posse comitatus and all. I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that people who argue it ain't so are people who don't understand people.

One more thing. The incidents described above were non-Muslim attacks on other Muslims (or perceived Muslims) the tragedy in Colorado appears to be Christian on Christian crime. So the perverse analogy Powerline, was trying to draw makes not a drop of sense to begin with.

Sure its a cute argument. But its a god-damned un-American one too. I think ya'll would do better to start playing to our virtues, and not to our vices. I'm just happy that guard had her trigger finger steady that day, otherwise this tragedy could have been MUCH WORSE. Steady trigger finger, and not spreading lies... two American virtues!

Trusting Toyota

Good blog over here by Chet Richards who knows his way around some Boyd.

I like the post, but one thing I don't understand is why Chet is so insistent on singing the praises of Toyota production and their maneuver theory. Toyota hasn't used maneuver theory successfully in the past decade, at least.

Toyota's quality has of course suffered greatly over that decade. But their market share hasn't suffered, it's substantially increased at the expense of other makers. Their share price hasn't suffered in that time period either, it has doubled! What is the economic rationale when your product becomes worse and worse but your profits get greater and greater?

Toyota's use of maneuver theory simply gave the company a solid foundation on which to springboard into a global giant. Nothing Toyota does today is done without express political calculation and the implicit subordination of quality design to sustainable profits.

Toyota has followed the exact course of the American auto makers. Their pie got so big that to increase it meant letting the heavies move in and get their beaks wet too. American autos used to be every bit as reliable, safe, and sophisticated as today's imports. But their financial success carried a tax on it which caused them to subvert quality in order to uplift political expediency. The same is happening with Toyota now.

The same can be said for Boeing. They "use" the Toyota production "system", but that system has been subordinated to a different goal than what Chet expects.

This is all a tangent to what Chet is talking about, and what he is talking about is good so go give it a read. But I wish he would stop holding Toyota up on a pedestal. The auto business, for them, is no longer about quality but about keeping the status quo.

The 33rd Pirate Brigade

Or something like that. Could a certain ex blogger's long held fantasy actually be attracting support in today's turbulent times? This article indicates yes.

I don't really think we'll ever see a Pirate Brigade, or a "privateer army" or anything like that, but this argument: "“We argued that there were different capabilities that were needed,” that would require members of the command to spend long periods in far-flung locations to get to know areas and to build relationships, he said. That “starts to point toward a whole different personnel system — ultimately, one in which people don’t go through the lieutenant to general officer set of ranks, for example.”" sounds pretty familiar.

That used to be grounds for getting you stationed in Alaska. Now its cutting edge thought. Times they are changing. Unfortunately though, the one thing that never changes is turf war.

“That’s the right move, and give them that type of authority and autonomy to do an indirect action, UW-type mission,” agreed Maj. Jamie Alden, an SF officer at the Naval Postgraduate School. “USASFC has the units that are trained and have the organizational culture to execute the UW mission. The problem is that USASFC is not given the authorities, etc., to execute such a mission.”

That ain't the only problem, but it sums it up better than I can. I wonder how far we'll go towards realizing a vision where we have a cohesive UW force that can hit and move faster than our UW foes. One thing I know for sure, if the people don't do it, private sector will eventually get around to it, and you don't want a brigade of Blackwater anytime soon.

Good thoughts on Iran

From Lex in this post. For me, a rather salient one. The sold out left has, for some time now, refused to take a draft seriously. Preferring instead to use its aura as a way to score cheap political points. The rabid war drum beating right has also refused to take a draft seriously, mainly because it would mean exposing their class based ruling principles.

But it doesn't matter. We've gone and kicked the hornets nest. Practically stepped on top of the damn thing. And we are covered with a swarm of nasty, pissed off, bullshitty little bees flying around. We will of course survive this swarm, but we have two choices:

(1) Go grab some more men who aren't afraid of getting stung and send the nest into the fire, or

(2) Sit there and wait for them to disperse, let them sting, let it all pass.

We are practically doing the latter, but ever American I talk to wants to do the former. Why is that?

Arming Tribal Pakis

Didn't see this article until today, a good post from Intel Dump. FWIW, I think the "blowback" Carter is talking about is most recently seen in good ol' Iraq. But whose being picky? If you think arming aQ was a bad idea back in the 80s, you just wait when you start arming tribes in the only nuclear Islamic republic. It won't end well and we'll have no control. I actually have to wonder aloud about the allegiance of those coming up with the plan. Do they want to see us fail?

In the saddle

Phocion has turned over the controls. I'm running things now. I'm pissed cause no one has posted as this blog for six months and now I've got to get things up an running or else I owe the man. So alright then. Here I go. Let's mix it up a little.

First, this goose skat from Zenpundit (I like him, think he writes good shit, but this ain't right, just like when a goose poops on your putting green).

Smallness and "homogeneity" are principles long fought over and long lost. Madison's vision was one of a large republic with heterogeneity. That vision was adopted in a little thing we call the Constitution. So long as the "sphere" is extended to incorporate all the multiple factions, power sharing under the rule of law is more steady and at the same time more vital than homogeneity and "one power" rule. Zenpundit might as well take his argument, and Robb's argument (also like him, but again, goose skat needs to be picked up) and start calling themselves the Confederate States of America. Doesn't work. These little states are parasites, wouldn't exist weren't for us. They aren't the end.

Second, more skat, but a bigger mess. Let's call it moose skat (if you've ever seen the stuff, you know what I mean). Stepped in some over here with this post. Poor little tdaxp. Still lost in the term "race". Here's a hint big fella. Race isn't actually a "thing". Your scores and your tests talking about which race is what are worthless. They are just markers. Step out of the little world and step into the small one that you live in. Race is a concept whose time has long since past.

Best Tom Barnett post ever found here. If they make it, and you don't go, I'll be laughing at your sorry ass cause I'll be there with bells on!

Third and final for this post, a good overview of Thailand's military issues found at this place. I like the article, but honestly, what Thailand needs isn't a military solution. They need political will and leadership which they just don't have right now. If a strong leader took over and put the right generals in charge of the southern strategy, they could very easily summon the boots necessary to quell things. They just don't have the will for it. It would be similar to a problem in Montana every now and then. No one wants to start a draft for that! Hell, we can't even get Congress to put the boots necessary in Iraq... where the oil is!!!! How on earth could we get them to go after Montana? My solution: make the south a goal. Make it a place where things end. Inertia will take care of the rest.

Federalist X relays

A message from some others and asked me to post here.

Hillary's numbers are crashing.

Obama and Edwards are neck and neck.

Could be a third place finish for Hill.

If This Is Not Irony

Condoleeza Rice "sticks up" for India on charges of slavery.

U.S. officials told CNN the question of India's ranking caused a heated debate between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.

Negroponte wanted India listed as a Tier 3 country, or worst offender. Rice overruled him out of concern about alienating the Indian government. India is on the Tier 2 watch list.

Rice agreed to undertake a special evaluation of India in six months, and then take action if India does not make improvements.

Good Lord. What's next? A Connecticut Yankee posing as a Southern good ol' boy?

New blog

I've been asked to relay a new addition.

Odin's own. Victory Through Airpower - Today. Odin may be more familiar to some from A9 as Blackbird.

I truly hope the title of the blog is a bit of sarcasm. But who knows?

Come on, you can do it

It appears I've made a friend. Mountainrunner is moving away from "motivations" and towards "goals". Of course the dear lad doesn't even realize the difference, but his drollery is still entertaining to a degree. The scribe writes:

It is fascinating, and more a little disappointing, to continue to hear comments like this that accept enemy attempts to attack our will but cannot comprehend the reverse. How very ironic, especially when it comes from those who support "4GW" and supposedly understand the changing nature of warfare.

I'd like to start out by saying I admire the shear brain power this Mountainrunner writes with. She or he is no fool. BUT,

tisk tisk. I never said I supported "4GW" nor did I ever say I "understand the changing nature of warfare." For me, this discussion of fourth generation warfare and an eventual fifth generation warfare is baseless poppycock!

War is a condition of the human soul. We fight every bit as much as we live. The more of us there are, the more likely we are to turn those fights into battles, battles into wars. This is just the human condition. Why do guerrillas fight the way they do? Because that is what they do. Why do we fight the way we do, because we are not guerrillas.

Understanding the "motivation" for the schoolyard bully doesn't change that he'll bloody the nose of any child who stands in his way. It does no good to understand "motivations", other than to say what is blatantly obvious to even a small child: those with power seek to destroy, and those without seek to avenge.

So what of Robb? What of "tactics" and "strategy"? What of "grand strategy"? These are all quaint terms and quaint thoughts. They do more to obscure and confuse than enlighten and refine.

It matters not whether or not the enemy is having a bad day. What matters is how do we find the enemy unprepared to engage?

Mountainrunner is correct that "goals" matter, for goals tell us where the enemy is going to be. I wonder if Mountainrunner would be so kind as to concede that "goals" and motivations are entirely separate, distinct, and altogether different things?

In fact, motivations are but a lazy mind's substitute for dealing with the hard facts on the ground. One of those facts, most acute and painful to all of us residing in the West in this current fateful epoch, is the fiction that there is but one "enemy". That there is but one motivation. Some predefined goal in their DNA perhaps. We could eradicate them as a species. This is Hitler dreaming. "Those evils Jews." Or "those cowardly Arabs."

Motivations, wills, these are all difficult things to pin down. Trying to abstract some sort of global "jihadi movement" out of all these individual actors is playing into the guerrilla's trap.

If Mountainrunner could answer this, then I suppose I would concede his point:

Did the motivations of the Apache tell us anything valuable in the war for the American West, and would such knowledge help America vanquish them any sooner?

I doubt it. But I'm listening now.

Blathering nonesense

Whats all this fuss about John Robb and his failure to describe "motivations" of guerrilla warriors? Robb's book (full disclosure: haven't read it and unlikely to for the next three months) discusses guerrilla warfare in the global age. His blog does the same. I believe Federalist X was quite fond of Robb's blog. I enjoy it as well, but I'm no military doctrinal theorist. Just an average bloke trying to make sense of things.

It seems the critique leveled against Robb is unfair and misplaced. I care more about that latter as fairness in critiquing works has never been a strong suit of mine. The criticism to date, if I can generalize, is thus: John Robb doesn't explain the motivation of his guerrillas, he doesn't go into what makes them tick, so therefore his theory of how to deal with them and where they are taking history is unhelpful. A few tastes of this here, here, and here.

This is sad. An entire generation of Americans seems devoted to nothing but Freudian apologetics. Why do these "thinkers" care so much about the "motivations" of guerrilla warriors? Because Freud said thats important. And what Freud says is the Gospel truth, never mind the evidence to the contrary.

Its true! These neo-conservative, neo-liberal, grand world visionaries are so used to sucking off the milky tit of Freud and the thoroughly discredited academics who espouse Freud's doctrine in the quiet confines of literature departments across the US that they no longer realize Freud has infected all parts of their thought.

We care about the guerrilla's motivations less than we do Billy Budd's. Or is it more? I can't remember. You see my mommy didn't love me enough when I was a boy and so ever since then I've been attracted to the smell of ivory tower feces and a dog's ass.

Robb's writings (cannot speak for his book) are unconcerned with motivations because motivations are spiritual. They aren't really important in a historical context. What are important are the consequences of their actions.

What were the motivations for the US Civil War? The list goes on. I'm sure Sigmund would relate it all to the Lincoln's sexual attraction to negro males. Just as I'm sure Dan, Mountainrunner, and the rest of these "thinkers" would opine endlessly on the sexual aggression of suicide bombers, their orgasmic climax of climaxes, and their aspirations to make love to multiple virgins. But what of the consequences? What of the real world?

Whilst the "thinkers" opine their grandiose notions, those of us living in the material world will be left picking up dead bodies. Our motivations have less to do with psychotherapy, and more to do with revenge. Hmm... that WAS simple, eh Sigmund?

Update

Clearly I'm not the regular poster once imagined. Pity. But I will keep posting when I can. Since others cannot, or will not, that should be good enough.

Speaking of posters, here are some pictures from one of our own. Looks cold!

Scared Shitless

This article makes clear for me what I dislike so much about Republicans at present, and that is that almost uniformly they are scared shitless.

We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp.

But more importantly the op-ed also points out the other thing I dislike about them so much, they are impeding victory.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

Scared defeatists, thats today's Republican Party.

America has routinely had this illness, but never before can it be said that America has had such a paralyzing amount of the illness. That is because, unlike McCarthyism, this current infection runs deep inside all the major institutions which govern power in the country. We are totally ineffective at waging the war on terror because our leaders are so afraid of the future that they forget where they came from.

On September 12, 2001, every single white man, black man, and any other man or woman in any real type of power all across the USA woke up completely, utterly, and so desperately scared shitless. The collective gasp: "what next?"

It will take a real man, or perhaps a real woman, to treat this illness. It will require not just one, or two, or even a handful of really good "take your skirts off and fight like men you pansies" type locker room conversations with the American power structure. Nay, it will require a prolonged course of stoic and spartan minded reform and practice. We've become so depressed by this daily and irrational fear that we no longer can lay claim to anything good or wholesome. We can only lay claim to gluttony, greed, and avarice.

We need a Winston Churchill right now, and instead all we have are some Rudy's and Obama's running around trying to be the next Prince.