Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2007 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I have been saying it from time to time in this blog that you Americans had been lied about the shole Yugoslavian affair and that there were no good croats and Muslims against eeeeeviol Serbs.
Now imagine you are a Serb living in Croatia and they tell you that you are supposed to live in state who is electinfg Franco Tudjman an open admirer of the anti-Serb genocidical Ustachis. And that he plans to restore the Ustachi flag as the new flag of Croatia?
Suppose you are a Serb living in Bosnia and they say your future president will be Iitzbzkovic a former member of the SS Handschar division? That his propganda depicts a Muslim warrior whose horse is trampling a Christian?
Are you going to just wait until the killers come for you? Or are you going to flee (if you are weak) or secede (if you are the majority in your county)?
That was the dilemma of the Serbs I know they perpetrated massacres. Just as the others would have done had they been the strongest.
And consider theese two facts: on one aoccasion the press published a photo of Muslims behind barbed wire telling they were in Serb concentratuion camps. In fact they weren't behind but in front of them. The barbed wire was circling a meadow and the journalists were inside it.
On another occasion a mortar shell landed in the market of Sarajevo, caused several dozen dead. Now you could have wondered how Serbs were able to hit the market with such precison with a wepon as imprecise as a mortar. Alo, but that wasxn't told by the MSM, allied artillery radar registered nothing. In addition the wounds were nearly in their totality on the lower half of the victims. That is what happens when what you have is not a mortar shell but a bomb under a table or stand. The aftermath was strong escalation of the allied in behalf of the Muslims.
Now dear Rantburgers you are guilty for not laking your homework. You knew you had been lied by the MSM during Vietnam, that you have been lied by the MSM on Irak but you had continued posting BS here< in Rantburg about Yugoslavia wirthout questionning what the MSM told you.
If you want to become better citizens you should, you really should read two books published in the sixties "The ugly American" and "A nation of sheep" telling about how uninformed Americans were m!anipulated by corrupt local elites in South-East Asai and played in the hands of communism. Despite their age they are still outstanding and IMHO useful for Rantburgers willing to help in the WOT and unwilling to let themselves mnipulated.
#11
In addition the wounds were nearly in their totality on the lower half of the victims. That is what happens when what you have is not a mortar shell but a bomb under a table or stand.
In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.
#14
Good article on the Serbs. I was unaware any Europeans other than Danes protect their Jews.
Also, I was able to understand their 'genetic conditioning" against mohammedeans as they had a long and painful history at the hands of one muslim mob after another, for centuries.
Russian President Vladimir Putin's bellicose speech at the Munich security conference on Feb. 10 has caused some to revive their arguments against enlarging NATO. The policy was wrongheaded because it produced the nationalist policies that emanate from Moscow today, they say. NATO expansion was a bad idea, they argue, because it enraged the Russians and prompted them to elect a former KGB officer and cold warrior as president. The only thing we got out of NATO enlargement, they say, was the Czech navy.
The critics were wrong when they opposed adding nations to the alliance in the 1990s, and they are still wrong. In fact, the more time that passes, the better the arguments in favor of enlargement look. There were basically three reasons for expanding NATO, and each has been proved right.
First, NATO enlargement was meant to provide a security shield behind which the countries of Central and Eastern Europe could bury their historical conflicts and peacefully integrate into the West. By taking the lead on enlargement, NATO helped make expansion of the European Union possible as well. The result is that Europe is more democratic, peaceful and secure than ever. All of us -- Europeans, Americans and Russians -- benefit. The threats Russia faces today are not in the West but in the South and to the East. Indeed, Moscow has more stability and less uncertainty on its Western borders than at any time since Napoleon.
Second, we enlarged NATO as a hedge against a Russia that, down the road, might once again emerge as a regional bully or threat. That is exactly what Moscow is in danger of becoming. But the good news for Central Europe is that it is secure now that it is firmly anchored in NATO and the European Union. Just imagine what Central Europe would look like today if we had not enlarged the alliance: Central and Eastern Europe leaders would spend more time worrying about how to stand up to Russian pressure than building democratic institutions and managing robust, free-market economies. Relations with Poland or the Baltic states would look something like the troubled relations Moscow has today with Ukraine and Georgia. We would again have instability in the heart of Europe when we could least afford it.
The third reason to enlarge NATO was broader and more strategic. At the time, President Bill Clinton spoke of his desire to help Europe resolve its continental conflicts and of his hope that this would encourage Europeans to raise their geopolitical sights, assume more global responsibility and become partners with the United States in addressing new threats beyond Europe. Does anyone doubt the need for precisely that after Sept. 11, 2001? Would NATO be in Afghanistan today or be talking about a more global mission if we had not helped build a stable post-Cold War security system in Europe in the 1990s? If Europe were not secure today, it would be much harder to persuade our allies to engage with us in places such as Afghanistan or the Middle East.
To say that NATO expansion triggered Putin's election as president is to rewrite history. When it comes to Vladimir Putin's career, we can thank Boris Yeltsin. He picked Putin as his successor to protect his own interests, not for reasons that had anything to do with NATO expansion. Let's stop pretending that Russia's troubling emergence as an illiberal, increasingly authoritarian state driven by a form of Eurasian petro-nationalism is the result of Western policy. It is because of developments inside Russia over which the West has little control.
To say that the West got nothing out of NATO expansion is to miss the forest for the trees. While many of NATO's new members are still poorer than Western European nations, their contribution to the alliance on a per capita basis is higher than that of most West European allies. The nations of Central and Eastern Europe are democratic, stable and prosperous. They made this progress precisely because they were able to leave the Soviet orbit and become part of Europe. That dream of joining NATO and rejoining Europe galvanized their populations and caused them to unite in support of tough reforms that were achieved only because they were the price of joining NATO. And today they have the confidence as well as the wherewithal to deal with the rise of a nationalist Russia.
In truth, with NATO's expansion we got much more than the Czech navy. We got a Europe that is whole and free. And we have an alliance that is better able to protect us from the threats of the future precisely because it has buried so many ghosts from the past. That's a pretty good deal.
The writers served in the State Department during the Clinton administration. Greg Craig was director of the Office of Policy Planning, and Ronald D. Asmus was deputy assistant secretary for European affairs.
a) more free lunchs for politicians
b) wider variety of hookers for politicians to choose from
c) reserved for a bright spark to think of another benefit
#2
Perhaps we need a rule: for every nation added to NATO, one nation must be thrown out. Poland, in! France, out! Czech Republic, in! Belgium, out!
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
02/19/2007 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
c) Greater amount of (mostly US) money to spread around greasing NATO politicians palms.
d) Greater need to keep US military in Europe in order to grease said politicians hands with (mostly US) money.
e) More money means more booze & hookers.
f) More opportunity for France to twist facts and backstab US military operations in order for it to continue doing "business" (consisting mostly of money, booze, and hookers) with US enemies.
g) More opportunity for NATO members to twist facts and hamstring reality by reversing the truth of real-world matters that may, or may not require military operations.
h) More opportunity for Europe to hide behind US military forces when they feel the use of force is needed so that European NATO military forces won't actually have to fight or incur those awfully high expenses involved in military operations (which takes away from the (mostly US) money for booze and hookers).
i) More opportunity for Europe to bleat, moan, and whine about "US hegemony" and "US imperialism" and "US overuse of military force" without first recourse to the UN to give permission for military operations.
A Gang Beating on Paris Streets. A Funeral for a Jew Tortured to Death in Paris Suburbs. A Meeting with No Meaning. A Plane Hijacking That Did Not, In the End, End Somewhere in Paris.
by PJM Paris Editor, Nidra Poller
The most underreported story in France so far this year:
I cant believe it . The incident occurred on Friday the 10th, the story popped up on Saturdays news, and then vanished without a trace! My attention was diverted during the newscast, I missed some important details, but when I searched for backup information in the print media online, all I could find was an article in the pay-to-read Le Parisien. This is an emblematic story that should have been covered back, front, and sideways:
A gang was marching to battle on a public thoroughfare in Ste. Geneviève des Bois (one of those Parisian banlieues whose bucolic name covers a snake pit of social problems). Fifty men armed with baseball bats, lead pipes, shovels and what-all, spilled from the sidewalk onto the road, blocking three cars. Somewhat like the Crusaders who massacred European Jews on their way to battle Muslims in Jerusalem, the punk jihadis attacked a woman trapped in the second of the three cars. A young man25 year-old Jalilijumped out of the third car and ran to the womans rescue. The thugs beat him into a coma. The police have arrested two of the assailants, one of whom was in possession of the womans cell phone. They are looking for the cad who bonked Jalili on the head with a shovel, causing the brain hemorrhage that left him in a coma.
via Blackfive ... via ???? via ???? if you have seen this yet, you need to click now.
Frank Millers stunning graphic novel 246 finally comes to film, as 246 brave congress members stand against 150,000 of the worlds greatest warriors.
After 16 undistinguished terms in Congress, Rep. John P. Murtha at long last felt his moment had arrived. He could not keep quiet the secret Democratic strategy that he had forged for the promised "second step" against President Bush's Iraq policy (after the "first step" of a nonbinding resolution of disapproval). In an interview last Thursday with the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org, he revealed plans to put conditions on funding of U.S. troops. His message: I am running this show.
Indeed he is. Murtha and his ally House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were humiliated last Nov. 16 when the Democratic caucus overwhelmingly voted against Murtha as majority leader. Three months later, Murtha has shaped party policy that would cripple Bush's Iraq troop surge by placing conditions on funding. That represents the most daring congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities since the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War challenged President Abraham Lincoln.
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
#4
This the kind of thing that the veto was intended to oppose. The president has to sign spending bills, just like any other bill. If a bill comes to him without proper funds for current operations, it has to be vetoed, even if it means shutting down the government. (Although this might be exactly what the demonrats want.)
Posted by: Jonathan ||
02/19/2007 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Next time you mean cluebat, say so. Otherwise it looks a little more threatening, and as I explained last week, we don't do that around here.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/19/2007 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Bad Armyguy, wack AQ muzzies, Coddle and concede to dimwit dems! Don't ya know we aint smurt enuff to be nuthin but soldgeers. Murtha says the truff! bremember he was once a dumb Marine, too stupid to do anyhting but go to war. (snark)
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/19/2007 18:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
That represents the most daring congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities since the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War challenged President Abraham Lincoln.
Oh, I think I beg to disagree.
I would think that the imposition of the War Powers Act is a far greater "congressional attempt to micromanage ongoing armed hostilities" than what the JCOtCotW ever tried.
Go here for a decent review,
http://www.civilwarhome.com/committee.htm
Here's the last paragraph,
The committees overall impact on Northern military operations is mixed. In some instances, it efforts had positive results. For instance, its investigations of light draught monitors, heavy ordnance, and ice contracts did expose waste, inefficiencies, and bureaucratic red tape. Its report on Union prisoners of war and the Fort Pillow massacre gave a much needed boost to Northern morale at a critical juncture of the war. At the same time, many of its investigations, particularly where the committee was successful in forcing Lincolns hand, had a negative impact on the war efforts. In many cases, the generals the committee endorsed were "correct" on the slavery issue, but militarily incompetent: Fremont and John Pope being two of the most obvious examples. Perhaps the biggest drawback to the committees work was its contribution to an atmosphere of jealousy and distrust among the nations elite officer corps--something that could only detract from waging war. Finally, in many investigations, the impact the committee had was neither positive nor negative. Hour after hour of testimony was taken, witness after witness was interviewed, yet nothing of practical value emerged. in many cases, the committees work was a waste of time, energy, and resources--something superfluous, something that detracted from the Unions ability to wage war. Committee members were motivated by patriotic and humanitarian sentiments; however, lack of military knowledge combined with too broad of an investigative latitude conspired to limit their usefulness to the Union war effort.
Source: "Encyclopedia of the American War" edited by David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler, article by Bruce Tap.
By comparison, the War Powers Act severely constrains the power of the POTUS to conduct military operations without reporting to Congress within specified periods of time.
#10
It appears that the old Marine Col., who lost the Viet Nam war wants to lose another one. Should I cry at his naive view of our enemies? Should I be appalled that the Dems look to him for leadership in a time of war?
Last week, we had a couple of object lessons in how to use -- or misuse -- foreign intelligence.
The first emerges from reports by U.S. military authorities in Iraq that weapons have been used there against American forces which seem highly likely to have come from Iran. To many of us, these reports seem unremarkable. There is every reason to believe that the mullah regime in Iran wishes us ill, and the border between Iraq and Iran, much of it highly mountainous, is surely porous. Yet from many critics of the administration emanate cries that these reports are not to be given credence -- they are just a ploy to justify military action against Iran.
To be sure, it appears that our military has been given orders to take action against Iranian agents in Iraq and that those orders have been followed. One wonders why such orders weren't given long ago. And there is certainly a case to be made -- I'd make it myself -- against a land war in Iran. But why should the reports be treated with suspicion?
The mullah regime has been making war against the United States since 1979. It committed an act of war against us by imprisoning our diplomats for 444 days. It sponsored Hezbollah, whose suicide bomber killed 240 Marines in Lebanon in 1983. It was behind the attack on the U.S. barracks in Khobar Towers in 1996. It calls the United States the Great Satan, and its current president has called for the eradication of the United States and Israel. The New York Times laments that America is "bullying" Iran. Actually, the mullah regime has been bullying the United States for 28 years.
So why the suspicion? The answer seems to be that because intelligence erred in its judgment that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction it could be erring here, too: All intelligence that could be used to justify military action is inherently dubious.
But the conclusion of our intelligence community -- and that of every other nation with serious intelligence capacity -- that Saddam had WMD was eminently justifiable. Saddam had possessed and used WMD in the past; he had resisted and evaded WMD inspections; and, as we have learned from Charles Duelfer, he retained the capacity to produce WMD in the future.
We found in 1991 that his nuclear program was further along than our intelligence agencies thought. No responsible American leader could have given Saddam the presumption of innocence and assumed he had no WMD until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. George W. Bush didn't. Neither did Bill Clinton.
The critics seem to be assuming that we can somehow obtain intelligence that is 100 percent accurate. But that is not possible in the real world. Intelligence tries to get information that regimes are making great effort to conceal -- evil regimes, in the case of Saddam and the mullahs. Our leaders must make decisions based on incomplete and highly imperfect information. And that information can remain imperfect for a long time. We still don't know what Saddam did with the WMD he once had and never accounted for.
The second object lesson was the Defense Department Inspector General's report accusing former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith of "inappropriate" behavior in presenting a briefing critical of intelligence community consensus.
The IG conceded that Feith's briefing was legal and authorized by his superiors, and did not criticize them for authorizing it. But it was somehow "inappropriate" for Feith to question the conclusion that there was no significant cooperation between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida.
What Feith did was to point to the intelligence community's own evidence of such cooperation and to question the assumption made by analysts that there could be no cooperation between Sunnis and Shiites. As we now know, such cooperation is very common. If your job is to protect the United States, you cannot assume it can't happen. Britain and France paid a high price for assuming that Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union would never cooperate.
Again we encounter the idea that intelligence agencies' conclusions should be regarded as Holy Writ, not to be questioned or analyzed critically by high government officials -- that there can be an intelligence product that is 100 percent accurate, and that every intelligence community conclusion must be treated as if it is.
The Bush critics' position is that we must believe without reservation or criticism any intelligence that can be used to argue against military action and that we should never believe any intelligence, however plausible, that can be used to argue for it. That's not very intelligent.
#1
Iran has developed innovative, asymmetric naval warfare tactics that exploit its favorable geographic situation, build on its strengths, and target the vulnerabilities of its enemies.
Exploit geography, play to your strengths and attack your enemies vulnerabilites. Dang! Now why didn't we think of that?
#2
How many hours does Iran have to get results from these tactics ? Our air superiority will wear down their forces and they will be forced to operate without cover. Will their tactics still have positive results even then ?
Bring them on, Puleeze.
#5
Right now, "asymmetric{al}" is the new kewl buzzword, and all the writers are using it. Does not mean that the concept actually will work, or stands a snowball's chance in Hell against a carrier battle group, it is the new kewl buzzword which must be invoked. Against Coast Guard high endurance cutters, Navy whalers, Marine Super Cobras, Burke class destroyers, F/A-18s, SeaHawks carrying Penguin missiles, and the like, all of the Iranian "asymetric naval warfare" craft will be quite useless after the first 15 minutes or so. They could possible actually sink one of our ships, but for the cost of their entire navy.
#6
Oh, and by the way, a full scale swarm attack on the US Navy would give President Bush carte blanche to hammer Iran's nuclear program as retaliation.
#7
There is no obvious prepping for invasion and occupation of Iran. Therefore: any play would involve destruction of Ayatollah power sources, psychological war against the Arabist parasites, and proferred alliances with seculars and religious moderates. I would forsee a quick coup after surgical strikes. Once the Khomeini Monument falls in Teheran, it is all over for the "parasts" (Iranian exile term for the ruling moonhowlers).
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the worst threat faced by the US and its allies is: Shiite power. Disregard the suicidal notions of the Wall Street Journal editorialists - and others - who favor exporting Iraq Shiite power to Iran. That cannot work.
#8
the mullahs in Iran, are first and foremost gangsters posing as religious men. They have sources of income, assets (car dealerships, warehouses, etc) , and interests. It would be an integral part of a successful Iran campaign to take those assets and interests out with the first strike, along with their mansions and compounds. Strike at their power and the MM's will topple. Shut off the gasoline imports and the IRG will be pushing the targets vehicles towards the "front". No invasion necessary
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2007 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
This naval doctrine sounds a lot like the old confederate horse general who said that his strategy was "to get there the firstest with the mostest". Isn't that our strategy too?
We all know the Iranian M.O. - nuclear proliferation, Holocaust denial, threats to wipe out Israel, vicious anti-Western rhetoric, lavish sponsorship of terrorists at work attacking Israel and destabilizing Lebanon.
If that were not enough, we now learn that Iran has been sending agents into Iraq to destroy the fledgling democracy and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs to blow up Americans.
Lunatic state-run media keep boasting that Iran will kidnap American soldiers, shut down the Straits of Hormuz, send out global jihadists and raise the price of oil.
Most international observers agree on two things about this loony theocracy that promises to take the world down with it: We should not yet bomb Iran, and it should not get the bomb. Yet the former forbearance could well ensure the latter reality.
What, then, should the United States do other than keep offering meaningless platitudes about ''dialogue'' and ''talking''?
Imagine that Iran is a hardboiled egg with a thin shell. We should tap it lightly wherever we can - until tiny fissures join and shatter the shell.
We can begin to do this by pushing international accords and doggedly ratcheting up the weak United Nations sanctions. Even if they don't do much to Iran in any significant way, the resolutions seem to enrage Ahmadinejad. And when he rages at the United Nations, he only loses further support, especially in the Third World.
We should start another fissure by prodding the European Union, presently Iran's chief trading partner, to be more vocal and resolute in pressuring Iran. The so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - failed completely to stop Iran's nuclear proliferation. But out of that setback came a growing realization among Europeans that a nuclear-tipped missile from theocratic Iran could soon hit Europe just as easily as it could Israel. Now Europeans should adopt a complete trade embargo to prevent Iranian access to precision machinery and high technology otherwise unobtainable from mischievous Russia and China.
Americans should continue to support Iranian dissidents. We need not encourage dissidents to go into the street, where they could be shot. Instead we can offer them media help and access to the West. Americans can highlight the plight of women, minorities and liberals in Iran - just the groups that so appeal to the elite Western left.
And we should announce in advance that we don't want any bases in Iran, that we don't want its oil, and that we won't send American infantry there. That would preempt the tired charges of imperialism and colonialism.
The United States also must stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing Iran wants is a democratic and prosperous Middle East surrounding its borders. The televised sight of Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Lebanese and Turks voting and speaking freely could galvanize Iranian popular opinion that in time might overwhelm the mullahs.
At the same time, we need to remind the Gulf monarchies that a nuclear Shiite theocracy is far more dangerous to them than either the United States or Israel - and that America's efforts to contain Iran depend on their own to rein in Wahhabis in Iraq.
We should say nothing much about the presence of two or three U.S. carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean. Iran will soon grasp on its own that the build-up of such forces might presage air strikes that the United States excels in - and not more ground fighting that the American public apparently won't any longer stomach.
We must continue to make clear that Israel is a sovereign nation with a perfect right to protect itself. Sixty years after the Holocaust, no Israeli prime minister will sit still idly while seventh-century theocrats grandstand about wiping out Israel.
Let's also keep our distance and moderate our rhetoric. There's no reason to frighten average Iranians - who may share our antipathy to their country's regime - or to make therapeutic pleas to talk with those leaders in bunkers whom we know are our enemies.
Finally, and most importantly, Americans must conserve energy, gasify coal, diversify fuels, drill more petroleum and invent new energy sources. Only that can collapse the world price of petroleum.
When oil is priced at $60 a barrel, Ahmadinejad is a charismatic Third World benefactor who throws cash to every thug who wants a roadside bomb or shouldered-fired missile - and has plenty of money to buy Pakistani, North Korean or Russian nuclear components. But when oil is $30 a barrel, Ahmadinejad will be despised by his own masses, who will become enraged as state-subsidized food and gas skyrocket, and scarce Iranian petrodollars are wasted on Hezbollah and Hamas.
None of these taps alone will fracture Iran and stop it from going nuclear. But all of them together might well crack Ahmadinejad's thin shell before he gets the bomb.
So let's start tapping.
U.S. should tap Ahmadinejad's egg
* VICTOR DAVIS HANSON is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
#2
I used to like VDH, but I'm starting to wonder if he's lost touch with reality. The UN is going to do . . . nothing about Iran. The EU "Little 3" is going to do . . . nothing about Iran. The Democrats in Congress will be more than happy to do nothing about Iran, and it looks as though the Bush Administration has chosen to do . . . nothing about Iran. Given this, it's hard to see what's going to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. And using them for whatever purposes they so desire.
Posted by: Infidel Bob ||
02/19/2007 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Every time we face some murderous tyrant, there is always some peanut head who thinks that with a little nudge from that countries coffee house beret wearing beat poets society, said murderous tyrant will just fold up shop.
They neglect to consider that to *become* a murderous tyrant in the first place, one has to be, well, murderous. As in, good at it.
#5
VDH, sadly, shares the preposterously ignorant misunderstanding of economics and energy markets that afflicts so many (even, if speeches are to be believed, Dubya). "Collapse the world price of petroleum". Jeezuz. That's idiotic. There isn't the slightest chance that anything remotely feasible the US might do would result in a collapse of the global oil market. And any marginal (yet still difficult and economically very wasteful) decreases in petroleum-intensity of US GDP will have no effect, either.
It's a bizarre thing to see: those who not only resist but very ably debunk the ignorant wishful-thinking of so many clueless types WRT terrorism and national security issues embrace a very silly position on oil markets.
#6
The world oil market is far more prone to collapse than the world oil price. Do you think this may have something to do with our hesitation to deal with Iran?
I'm not very good at History, so I'll let JFM comment on that, but IIUC, the "psychological war" (that is, counter-insurgency and the political/ideological war, as opposed to the purely "military" war) was also won by the french armed forces, to the point a very significant part of arab algerians had enlisted in the various pro-french militia and groups (they out-numbered independentists by 10/1 or more), and that the post-60's western doctrine of counter-insurgency was largely built on french teachings (that know-how was for example exported to South America). Book Review by Amir Taheri
If President George W Bush's political enemies are to be believed, the one thing he has never done is read a book. So, it might come as a surprise that Bush spent part of his holiday last Christmas reading a thick book sent to him as a present by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. In a little note attached to the parcel, Kissinger speculated that the president might find the book of interest in view of the challenges the United States faces in Iraq.
The book in question is "A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962", by the historian Alistair Horne and originally published three decades ago. The book has been a "must-read" for anyone interested in guerrilla wars and the anti-colonial armed struggles in the so-called Third World. It could be read both as a thrilling narrative of the eight-year long conflict and a manual on tactics and strategy in guerrilla warfare.
In a preface for the new paperback edition. Horne clearly draws attention to parallels between the Algerian war and the current conflict in Iraq.
He recalls the fact that the French antagonized many Algerians through indiscriminate mass arrests, at times followed by mistreatment and even torture of prisoners. Although the Abu-Ghuraib incidents in which a dozen or so US soldiers humiliated their Iraqi prisoners did not occur because of official American policy, the impact on many Iraqis was devastating.
Horne also claims that the US policy of enabling the new Iraqi army and police to control the country is doomed. In Algeria, too, more Algerians were fighting in the ranks of the French army than against it. And, yet, a much smaller force of guerrillas and terrorists succeeded in raising the cost of the conflict in human terms to levels that the French public could not tolerate.
#1
I have said for some time that the war in Iraq resembles the French experience in Algeria rather than the American experience in Viet-Nam. The notable thing in Algeria was the incompetence of the FLN and the effectiveness of the French military.
Unfortunately the French left was determined to make sure France failed at anything it tried, and Algeria was just one more thing to sabotage.
The FLN was defeated and was not even the main guerilla force, but the French government finally tired of the domestic battles and needed someone to surrender to.
The French right, the settlers (some 1 million strong), and loyalist Algerians were all betrayed by the Left. The worst thing is the French left did it just for spite.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
02/19/2007 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The French effort was opposed by many in France during the 1950s and early 60s. The French military effort was successful as was the U.S. effort in Vietnam. These wars had their difficulties on the home front. The war in Iraq has its difficulties on the home front--mostly due to leftists elitists in my opinion. This includes many in the arts and entertainment community, the Democratic Party, and the main stream media.
Horne acts as if it is a done deal in Iraq. Perhaps a better model for viewing the conflict in Iraq is in terms of the British effort against the Communists in Malaysia or the present effort against the terrorists in the Philippines today.
#3
THe French antagonized many in Algerian society followe"d by mistreatment and torture of prisonners
What a load of BS. The dilemma of the French miltary (BTW one of the main torturers had been former SAS and had been tortured hilmself by the Germans) was very simple: if that guy doesn't talk his comrades will cut to pieces every inhabitant (news borns includexd) of an entire MUSLIM village, put a bomb in school bus, machine gun a merry-go-round (all of theses are based on REAL cases). And it wasn't the locals who weree shocket it was the "intellectuals" of the Natuional Communist der Franzosen Arbeiteren Partei who were shocked. And of course communists gave weapons to the massacrers of the FLN, ransported explosives for thjem (Europens were less likely to be searched) and created or magnified horror stories about French Army's behaviour. Oh and Communist paramedics refused to attend wounded French soldiers.
While we are it, one of the best known cases was torture of Communist Alleg. In fact he was merely bitch-slapped by a French liutenent he had called a "fascist".
Did I mentio the heinous treatemnt they gave to the few harkis (Algerians in French Army) who had excaped Algeria and the horrendous fate the FMN had reserved them?
Did I mention that it was the French Army who disarmed the harkis because if the French had just withdrawn the harkis would have just exterminsted the far, far less numerous FLN?
#4
Also one of the problems in anti-guerrilla warfare is that you have to make clear that if you help the guerrilas will get you killed. Otherwise people will just say: "the guerillas will kill me if I don't help them while the Western army will only give me a wrost slap. Better to help the guerrillas".
In one notable example the FLN had thereatened the local shoppers into closing their shops. So the French commander fired the gun of a tank destroyer on the shop. It probably did not make that much damage (Armor piercing ammo is nearly harmless against soft targets) but it delivered the right kind of message (support the FLN has a heavy price) and gave every local the excuse he needed to reepone his shop "Oh but the FRench werfe mad, they were to kill us all, they fired that gun and were preparing flamethrowers and planes and nukes and gozilla. They FORCED us". In a matter of weeks the district becale FLN-free.
There's a new myth being pumped by the anti-Bush crowd, that somehow the president is once again "hyping" intelligence to make the case for war. This time it's Iran and the allegedly hyped intelligence concerns Iran's involvement in Iraq, as well as the administration's interpretation of Iran's motives and intentions.
The anti-Bush crowd is concerned that Bush's new, hard-headed approach to Iranian terrorists operating in Iraq is actually beginning to show results, and it is desperate to sabotage any political benefit the president might derive from this success. "If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority," Sen. Hil- lary Rodham Clinton huffed on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday.
The president's Jan. 10 speech announcing his new Iraq policy was followed by immediate action on the ground. That night, American and Iraqi forces raided an Iranian intelligence headquarters in the northern city of Irbil, nabbing six Iranians, including three top Revolutionary Guards commanders. These and other Iranians captured over the past 18 months have yielded detailed intelligence on Iran's penetration of Iraq and its supply of a new type of armor-piercing, improvised, explosive device to Iraqi insurgents.
U.S. military briefers in Baghdad showed journalists some of the Iranian weapons and other intelligence material on Feb. 11. They revealed that the expeditionary forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, known as the Quds force, "trains extremists and insurgents in terrorist tactics and guerilla warfare" and "supports terrorism by providing advice, training and weapons to insurgents and terrorist groups."
Within days, this information was challenged, with journalists pummeling the president at a news conference with allegations that all of this was somehow a "rogue operation" that bore no relationship to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. That's like saying that the 1,854 U.S. Marines on board the USS Boxer, now cruising in the Persian Gulf, have somehow appeared out of nowhere without the knowledge or approval of the U.S. government.
The Quds force is an integral part of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, and reports through the chain of command to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Its mission is terrorism. Quds force officers have been directly involved in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983, the bombing of the AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in July 1994 and a host of other attacks. The Quds force also trains foreign terrorists in Iran and manages a far-flung commercial network around the world, including front companies in Germany whose purpose is to acquire high technology for Iranian weapons programs and to launder money for terrorist operations.
The president was right to point the finger at the Quds force for the murder of 170 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and to order a crackdown. The results are already in: Renegade Iraqi Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran earlier this month, along with many of his top deputies.
Iranian sources tell me that Khamenei "panicked" at the new U.S. policy, which he referred to as mar-rouye domesh vastadeh - "the cobra standing on his tail." By late January, a new, blue-ribbon security/intelligence committee recommended to Khamenei that Iran scale back its presence in Iraq. So Khamenei ordered some of the Quds forces officers to withdraw and sent a letter to al-Sadr "inviting" him to Iran. Last week, I learned from Iranian sources that Khamenei has now ordered the Quds force to reduce its exposure in other parts of the Persian Gulf, in particular in Bahrain. Iran has thoroughly infiltrated Bahrain's majority Shiite population and has repeatedly sparked demonstrations against the presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
The latest ploy by the anti-Bush crowd is the allegation that the White House ignored an Iranian offer in April 2003 to negotiate a "comprehensive settlement" with Iran. According to this fairy tale, the Iranians were willing to discuss their support for terrorist groups and their nuclear program and even recognize Israel but the Bush administration turned them down.
The story is being hyped by rogue weasel Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staffer who quit government in May 2003 to become an adviser to the presidential campaign of John Kerry. The Iranian official who allegedly made the proposal, Sadeq Kharrazi, was subsequently arrested for "unauthorized contacts" with the United States. So much for an authoritative offer.
What's clear in both these stories is that the Tehran regime fears a tough U.S. policy. In Iraq and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, it is already backing down under pressure. And when it comes to negotiations, we learn that the one thing the regime really wants is for the United States to cut off support for the pro-democracy movement and to provide security guarantees to the regime. The conclusion is simple: Hang tough. It's working.
Kenneth R. Timmerman, president of the Middle East Data Project, is author of "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran."
#1
SALON commentator Joe Conason > book THE ENEMY AT HOME > Dubya's handling of Iraq = Katrina is putting America on the road to anti-democratic?, anti-Libertarian? AUTHORITARIANISM. Not just Authoritarianism, but anti-American American-Global Authoritarianism. *Reminds me again of a FREEREPUBLIC Poster [paraphrased]> America under Dubya is moving towards Communism + Socialism, etc. and - God-help us - the Commies, etc. DON'T KNOW HOW TO STOP IT.
See also PROGRESSIVE > AMER SOCIALIST CONFERENCE > American Communists demand Dubya not only be impeached, but that the executive authority of the POTUS/WH be constitutionally curtailed = subjected to heavy Congressional oversight.
#2
All together, boyz, wid feeling, "ARISE, CORSICANT, ARISE PEOPLE'S REVOLUTIONARY CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE US OF AMERIKA" - you know, Russia-China/SCO. D ***ng it, its for the Children, its to save the Earth. America = Amerika is the first de facto or surreal "Empire" in histoire' thats NOT allowed to rule or have OWG UNLESS ITS FIRST DEGRADED, HUMILIATED, DEFEATED IFF NOT DESTROYED. OUR MILFORS MUST BE WITHDRAWN ANDOR DEFEATED, THEN AMER CAN HAVE = RULE OUR SO-CALLED "EMPIRE".
See also WND.com > AMER IS NEW "ROME", ergo Amer will become sectarian and break-up FROM WITHIN. * The alleged "fall of Rome" resulted in Modern Europe - problem is, I don't think or believe thats what the anti-US Globalists or Commie-Socialists want.
...This wingnut is writing in the Casper, WY Star Tribune. One of the locals gave a reply that is far better than anything I could ever come up with, and I'll post it at the end... Jingoism rots nation from within Monday, February 05, 2007
Editor:
Hearing those sappy panegyrics about "our men and women in uniform" every 10 minutes always reminds me of Ludmilla Boriskova, heroine of the Soviet union, wrestling with fighter bomber propellers in a titanic struggle for the Motherland. Where are you now, O babushka?
I lived among Marines for nearly a quarter century in the botched coat-hanger abortion of a military town called Oceanside, home to the World War II white elephant Camp Pendleton, where the disgraced killer stooges of innocent Iraqi civilians now stand trial.
Every other car in Oceanslime boasts a Department of Offense sticker, and these no-larger-than-life military families sup greedily at the tacky base's federal hog trough without producing a thing of value. There's a bootlicking miasma of death cultism about this blighted community, with macho Jarboy McFitzroy wife-beaters and drunken military jerks mowing someone down on the way home from a bacchanalian spree in Tijuana or Sandy Eggo.
I've encountered countless mediocre opportunists, groupers and communards among these militarists, and they don't wage war in my name, and they don't impress me. They serve the almighty Amurrican king Tex Shrub in a fascistic empire that knows next to nothing about rational restraint, checks and balances, or the consent of the governed. The more U.S. soldiers get killed, the more it hopefully hastens the humiliating defeat and inevitable breakup of this fraudulent, hypocritical and rotten-to-the-core nation-state, following the moribund trajectory of the Spanish, Dutch and British empires of yesteryear.
Many of these uniformitarian clowns in the service think I and others owe them for ever-dwindling freedom or daily abridged rights. The military's a woolly infantile cocoon for authoritarian punks and bimbos, from the doublespeak sociopath generals on down the barnyard pecking order and brain-dead chain of command, blaming politicians as usual for their failures and shortcomings.
Why don't y'all kneel down with the Christian fascist chaplain and pray for a swift kick in the butt to hell and gone, soldier boys and girls? Down with the United States and its vaunted holy of holies armed services, and may the ever-growing list of global enemies eventually combine forces to kick its back teeth to Timbuktu.
KELLY HENNESSY, Cody The best response:
"Funny, in the old west where nearly all had an 1873 colt or a No. 3 Schoelfield on their belt, people monitored what spew from their mouths as they knew that it was likely that they would be held accountable for their remarks.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/19/2007 09:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's funny is that my ancient brain hiccupped and let me think that this letter was funny in an ironic sort of way.
Who could have known that there are people out there with the ability to speak the "angry truth" to the rest of us pea-brains that thought we were serving our country?
#2
Kelly isn't fit to wipe a Marine's ass. I hope the good citizens of Cody find an appropriate response to this infection amongst them
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2007 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I have the impression that KELLY HENNESSY didn't have many friends when young. One wonders if Kelly has many friends even now, in the wilds of Cody, Wyoming.
#5
Oceanslime? My first experience with anyone in uniform took place during a "bacchanalian spree in Tijuana," as a reckless, naive 17-year-old USC student. My "friends" stranded me there at 4 AM, with only a black velvet dress, spike-heeled boots, five bucks, and a fake ID. I wound up spending the night in a cockroach-infested Tijuana hotel room with two "macho jarboys," who were not only perfect gentlemen, but also went to great lengths to deliver me back to LA the next day. Lesson learned: dump my fair-weather friends, and stick with the Marines.
#6
Kelly Patrick Hennessy, formerly of Oceanside, was a moonbat there as well, it seems; NCTimes 10/19/03 letters:
Govinator using old Soviet playbook
"Mommy, why do they call Axel Krauthammer the vermin hater?" asked Little Miss Quickstudy. "And why does he shoot up a police station in one of his trashy movies, all of which lack redeeming social value, when his party brown-noses law enforcement ad nauseam?"
"Krauthammer could've used his muscles for 20 or 30 productive years of Austrian farm labor, instead he prostituted them to America's fetish for violence, putting that stale Yankee Doodle feather in his cap and calling it macro-baloney," Miss Q's mommy mused. "As for Axel's vermin-hater box office sobriquet, it makes no sense 'cause he married into the cheesiest ratpack on the left, the ersatz Camelot Kennedy clan," she continued.
"Mommy, even a California public school kid can see through this vermin hater's bromide about putting children first," Miss Q reflected. "It's straight out of the old Soviet playbook, right along with departments of homeland security. What about seniors, garlic-smelling lumpenproles, and counterculture bohemians like that nice Mr. Henderson of Oceanspray?"
"They're just the gutter balls in Krauthammer's tinhorn GOP bowling alley, honey," her mom concluded, "but they'll be back after this pyrite state gets assayed."
KELLY PATRICK HENNESSY
Oceanside
heh heh - I love search engines
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2007 19:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
ExJAG that's the most romantic story I ever heard.
#8
Good find, Frank. The writing is just clever enough that Kelly etc will be a starving wannabe writer all its life. I notice Kelly doesn't like the old lions of the left anymore than the mass of the right. Definitely no friends.
#9
Oh, this stinking pustelescent piece of shit deserves to have its ass kicked straight to North Korea for spewing this kind of drivel.
Where does this shit think it gets the privilege to spew this vile diatribe from? Just cause it grew up here?
Deport this piece of human scum or at least arrest it for the treasonous America-hating puddle of vomit it is.
Hey, Kelly, having a job as a journalist brings with it certain obligations to the truth and freedom. Who do you think earned that right for you, you lower than slime-mold piece of offal?
You do not deserve your job nor do you deserve to live in this country (or for that matter on this planet with other rational human beings).
I'd say "Blow me", but I'd sooner have OBL's lips on my privates than yours no matter the gender.
#10
The more U.S. soldiers get killed, the more it hopefully hastens the humiliating defeat and inevitable breakup of this fraudulent, hypocritical and rotten-to-the-core nation-state, following the moribund trajectory of the Spanish, Dutch and British empires of yesteryear.
This is clear sedition and treason - and in print!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
After 16 undistinguished terms in Congress, Rep. John P. Murtha at long last felt his moment had arrived. He could not keep quiet the secret Democratic strategy that he had forged for the promised "second step" against President Bush's Iraq policy (after the "first step" of a nonbinding resolution of disapproval). In an interview last Thursday with the antiwar Web site MoveCongress.org, he revealed plans to put conditions on funding of U.S. troops. His message: I am running this show.
