ONE THEME THAT emerged clearly at the Senate hearings with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker was the need to abandon Iraq in order to deal with the real center of the war on terror in South Asia. A series of questioners put on the airs of grand strategic sophisticates to remind Petraeus that whereas his brief includes only Iraq, theirs covers the entire world--and from their viewpoint, the fight that matters is not the one that Petraeus and Crocker and their subordinates are winning in Iraq, but the one in the "Afghan-Pakistan border region," as it was so often called. Petraeus and Crocker pointed out repeatedly and accurately that al Qaeda's leaders themselves continually refer to Iraq as the central front in their war against us, but to no avail. The real fight, they were told each time, is in the Afghan-Pakistan border region against the real al Qaeda that the Intelligence Community says has only grown stronger. And, the general and the ambassador were lectured, keeping too many troops in Iraq was preventing the United States from prevailing in this more important fight. Let's consider this thesis in a little more detail.
To begin with, numerous senators spoke of the Afghan-Pakistan border area as though there were no border--forces poured into Afghanistan would somehow directly affect what was going on in Pakistan or, alternatively, the real al Qaeda was on the Afghan side where U.S. troops could get at them. Speaking ethnographically, of course, there is no border--the Durand
Line that separates Afghanistan from Pakistan cuts the Pashtun nation just about in half, and the porous border has seen decades of happy smuggling. But the border is very real both to our forces and to their enemies. Our troops know that they cannot cross into Pakistan, and the enemy knows it too. That's why the bases of the "real" al Qaeda are not in Afghanistan--American troops in Afghanistan report very few al Qaeda fighters and those they do come across are mostly operating out of Pakistani bases. The al Qaeda bases that harbor Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and the other al Qaeda leaders plotting the attacks against which the Intelligence Community warns are in Pakistan--principally Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Chitral in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP).
Pouring troops into Afghanistan does not address those problems. Even advocating an invasion of those areas (with or without Islamabad's consent) makes little sense--al Qaeda works also with Kashmiri separatists, who have their own terror training bases outside of these areas, and we can be certain that the Pakistani government that supports the Kashmiri fighters will not be enthusiastic about American forces taking them out. And, even if they were, by this point we're pretty much occupying half of Pakistan. We could line a lot of soldiers up along the (20,000-foot) mountains along the border, but how does sealing the terrorists into their own base camps in Pakistan help? The problem isn't that they go into Afghanistan, but that we have no good plan for getting them out of Pakistan. That is a problem worthy of many senatorial hearings, and it would be nice if any of the advocates of losing in Iraq to fight the real enemy in South Asia had a solution to propose. It should be a sine qua non, in fact, for anyone who proposes accepting defeat in Iraq first to offer a concrete plan for doing something against the supposedly realer al Qaeda enemy in Pakistan.
Afghanistan is extremely important in its own right, of course, and if we fail in Afghanistan, then we will indeed offer al Qaeda another potential base from which to operate. Considering how well established it already is in Pakistan and how little Afghanistan--one of the most desperately poor countries on earth--has to offer the terrorists, it's a bit hard to see why they would relocate, but we should certainly deny them the opportunity. There are many other reasons to succeed in Afghanistan as well, moreover, including the possibility of developing a stable, democratic ally in the heart of a key region that is a producer rather than a consumer of security.
But now we must consider another set of questions: How urgently do we need to send more troops to Afghanistan, and is there really nothing else we can do? At the end of 2006, Iraq was so close to complete catastrophe that nothing short of a military surge supporting a changed military strategy had any chance of success. We were within a hair's breadth of defeat. That is not the case in Afghanistan. The Taliban insurgency has grown in strength, particularly in the south, government control remains weak, security forces are small and inadequately trained and equipped, corruption is rampant, and so on. But the situation is not deteriorating that rapidly, and relatively small additions of force--with improved approaches--have made a significant difference in important areas. NATO certainly needs to send significant additional forces to Afghanistan, and the United States will probably
have to contribute most of them. But the urgency is nothing like what it was in Iraq in December 2006, and is driven more by the need to secure Afghan elections in 2009 than by the danger that the country is about to collapse.
To the question, "Is there really nothing we can do unless we send more troops?" the answer is unequivocally that there is something we can do. Congress can do it, in fact, and very quickly. Pass the supplemental defense appropriation that would allow development money to flow reliably to our soldiers in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. The advantage of Afghanistan's poverty (for us) is that a little money goes a long way. American soldiers have increasingly been leveraging development funds to starve the insurgency of recruits in a way similar to what has worked in Iraq (but tailored appropriately to conditions in Afghanistan). They need more money. One of the problems the British face in the south of the country is that their government does not give their soldiers development money to spend. We should find ways to help them out. Congress could do all of this with one roll-call vote in each house, and the aid would start flowing to Afghanistan faster than any additional brigades could arrive. American soldiers in Iraq often say that dollars are their best bullets--the same is true in Afghanistan. If the congressmen who evince so much concern about Afghanistan's well-being really had the success of our effort at heart, they would stop playing political football with the supplemental and send the aid they control to our soldiers in this key front right away. The fact that they have preferred to delay the supplemental in order to threaten to force the president to withdraw forces from Iraq--a tactic that hinders the effort in the theater they say is the most important in order to force a change of strategy in a secondary (to them) theater--speaks volumes.
#2
if we fail in Afghanistan, then we will indeed offer al Qaeda another potential base from which to operate.
Nonsense. They've already got Pakiland which makes Afghanistan ultimately untenable. It will take at least 40 years to unscrew Afghanistan, and I suspect closer to twice that. Do anyone think we can maintain a presence there for that long? Let's declare victory and withdraw while we still can and devote our resources to making Iraq a success.
#3
I dunno, NS - Afghanistan is between Iran and Pakistan. With Iraq to the west of Iran and India to the east of Pakistan. I suspect we're gonna have to try to keep both as stable as we can manage in order to deal with those two nuclear pains in the ass.
#4
Afghanistan's position is great as long as you have a secure supply line from somewhere. And the only one I can see is through Pakistan. And that is looking a lot less secure than it was when Perv was in power. This is starting to smell like Dienbienphu. Good as the Afghans have been, they're victims of geography, like the Poles. No point leading them on when we can't support them. Let's leave now, gracefully, so that they can fend for themselves as they see fit and come back another day to finish the job properly, via Islamabad.
The 'creep' in the title refers to the author. Mr. DeBord is a loathsome asshat and one good reason why the Los Angeles Times is going down the drain.
A uniform full of medals and decorations clashes with his message
By Matthew DeBord
Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, ...
... and that's all the praise you're going to get from Matthew, General ...
... but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform.
He was summoned to Congress. He wore the prescribed uniform for the occasion. The medals are part of that uniform. He was required to be there and required to turn himself out properly.
And what a jerk Mr. DeBord is to describe a medal as a 'brooch'.
He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.
Senator Levin wasn't sure, so it was good that the General had his ID tag on ...
That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago.
That's an despicable slur right there. The General has worn the uniform for a couple decades, and during that time Matthew scampered about doing whatever it was he did. The General hasn't complained about his duty, and Mr. DeBord should be grateful, not fondling his neuticles.
Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.
That's just plain idiotic. You get an award, commendation or ribbon because of what you've done. Military people, and Mr. DeBord certainly isn't one of them, know how to read the ribbons and decide who the man is behind them. I understand that among the ribbons and medals are an Air assault badge, Master Parachutist badge, and a Combat Action Badge. I'll let a retired command sergeant major read these badges and tell me what he thinks.
Think about any of the generals you've seen in recent years Norman Schwarzkopf, Barry McCaffrey, Wesley Clark (all now retired) and others and the image you'll conjure no doubt includes a chest full of shimmering decorations.
Most of those ribbons earned the same way as General Petraeus. Whatever you might think of each of those men, they served us all honorably, in trying times, and each had to find the measure of himself at some point in his career. Mr. DeBord, the panty waist, has never done that.
In Petraeus' case, most of them don't represent actual military action as much as they do the general's devotion to the institution of the U.S. Army and vice versa. According to an annotated photograph produced by the Times of London last year, the majority of ribbons on Petraeus' impressive "rack" were earned for various flavors of distinguished service. As brave as he may be and as meritorious in general, is all that ostentation the best way to present the situation in Iraq to an increasingly war-skeptical public?
Again, DeBord is an asshat. The man is required to wear his ribbons. The ribbons are for distinguished service. Are we to want for generals who lack distinguished service? What DeBord is doing is, very simply, a character assault on an honorable man.
Of course, Petraeus' goal is not just to make simple, soldierly arguments before Congress it is to dazzle, at least initially, with the blazing imagery of rank.
He was there because Congress summoned him. What's so hard about understanding that?
What, after all, are mere Brooks Brothers suits on the members of Congress in the face of a fighting man's laurels?
I'll just bet, if you measure those things in dollars, that those Brooks Brothers suits cost more than the uniform. My way of looking at it is, that uniform cost more than a suit of clothes ever could ...
Some of the showiness can be attributed to regulations: The official uniform of the Army is to be worn in a very specific manner, and the brass have an obligation to live up to their billing by showing plenty of ... well, brass. On the other hand, if you're wearing four stars, you surely have some say when it comes to matters of peacockery.
Again, this is character assassination, pure and simple. Assuming that DeBord ever won a major journalism prize (as well he might, considering the state of that profession today), would he be required not to mention it if summoned to give an address?
Medals and decorations have a long history with a slightly cynical tinge. This goes back to their inception, during the Napoleonic era, when the strategic genius from Corsica discovered that baubles handed out to the combatants helped ensure loyalty and ferociousness. "With a handful of ribbons, I can conquer all of Europe," he said.
Yet more character assassination. The awarding of medals substantially predates the Corsican. And in any case today, the issue isn't the traditions of the ancient world, it's the tradition of our military and country that matters: when we give a medal, that medal has a meaning. Most Americans understand what a Silver Star or a Purple Heart means. Most would understand, with a few seconds education and reflection, what a distinguished service medal means. That's the point. A medal isn't a shiny 'bauble', it's a symbol of the work and sacrifice.
In more contemporary times, decorations have suffered a fraught reputation among the rank and file: nice to get but awkward to display if the memories associated with them are of violence, loss and the ineptness of commanders. There have been isolated incidents of Iraq war veterans returning their medals, and, of course, Vietnam War vets were better acquainted with this kind of protest.
Here Mr. DeBord elevates John Kerry of all people above General Petreaus. Kerry threw his medals away, you see, even though he got them back later.
The greatest military leaders, in the age of organized national armies, have often conspicuously modified the official requirements of the uniform, even in the most public of settings. Ulysses S. Grant accepted Robert E. Lee's sword while outfitted in disheveled Union blue and muddy boots.
Grant did so because he was on the road that day, and didn't want to keep General Lee waiting, since the latter was prepared to surrender his army.
Douglas MacArthur presided over the signing of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on the deck of the battleship Missouri without donning so much as a necktie with his khakis.
Which, according to Mr. DeBord, means that Doug MacArthur couldn't possibly have had an ego ...
George Patton was flamboyant, in his jodhpurs and riding boots, but he backed it up in battle after battle. His legend derived equally from brilliant tactics and an outrageous wardrobe.
General Petreaus is developing his legend for brilliant tactics today.
Perhaps the best example, however and one that Petraeus and his cadre should look to for inspiration was set by two of the most politically savvy generals America has produced: Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. In photographs following World War II, with Ike fresh from rescuing Western civilization while Marshall was working to rebuild it, both men appear victorious, yet somber, cognizant of the challenges met and the challenges ahead. Eisenhower wears a single row of ribbons, Marshall three.
General Marshall appeared before the Congress numerous times, and each time wore the required uniform. With his medals. Each of them earned.
When you've saved the world and managed the lives and deaths of millions, it obviously compels a certain level of modesty about showcasing your accomplishments, however monumental. Apparently when you're trying to explain why your war-fighting achievements are "fragile" and why the conflict you're running in a hot, dusty faraway place might never be won, it does not.
Memo to Petraeus: When you're making the case for more patriotic gore, go easy on the glitter.
No doubt if the General had rolled into Congress in a beat-up Hummer, skin sweaty and hair mussed, wearing BDUs covered with the grit of Iraq, Mr. DeBord would have complained about that.
Asshat.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/10/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Better get ready for a positively cascading avalanche of this and similar insanity if the left wins in 2008.
And De Bord is just a tiny boil on the pimple pocked buttock of the American left, and as such wouldn't even make a pimple in General Petraeus' ass.
#4
For most of the General's career, there weren't a lot of opportunities for an Infantry officer to gain "combat" experience. Grenada 1983 - ten days. Panama 1989 - two weeks. Gulf War I 1990-91 - length of time depends on what you count. Hard combat - maybe ten days. Somalia 1993 - again, duration depends on what you count.
But -Petraeus took a bullet through a lung as a Brigade commander, stateside - not that ass-wipe DeBord would think that meaningful.
In June of 1980, by a fluke of Social Security Number (randomly selected), I found myself - then an Infantry Lieutenant in the 82nd Airborne Division - appearing for two days before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Military Manpower, in Washingtion. They were trying to figure out how to attract and retain soldiers in the face of the total gutting of the military by the Carter administration.
There were 12 of us - 6 officers, six enlisted - all ranks - summoned to Washington from all over the world. The first day, we just sat in two rows, as "decoration" - behind the Army Chief of Staff (GEN Edward Meyer) and the Secretary of the Army (Donald Alexander), as they testified for about four or five hours.
I will never, ever forget what I witnessed, first hand. While some of the the congressmen were respectful and thoughtful, a signifcant number of them addressed the SoA and CSA insultingly, with sneering contempt, disdain, and utter hostility.
I was just a dumb Lieutenant, but I knew that "Shy" Meyer had previously served as asst. Division Commander of the 82nd Airborne (my Division), and I just could not fathom the treatment that was dished out by the feral congressmen (and women - Patrica Schroeder was one who stood out to me).
The Secretary and Chief Of Staff never batted an eye - respectfully and professionally answered every query - and the contrast in professionalism between the congressmen, and the Pentagon representatives was like night and day.
The next day, just the twelve of us appeared - morning session for enlisted "witnesses" - afternoon session for the officers. The exact same congressmen - but this time they were all gushing honey and milk - fawning all over us, In asking each question, the speaker would precede the question with a fifty word "sound-bite" preamble, basically licking our asses - so that thy could get their comments quoted in news releases, "praising the troops" - one day after they had tried to gang-rape two of the top four individuals in our chain of command - right in front of us.
It was real eye-opener for a young officer.
The dignity of the Pentagon officials is just five orders of magnitude above the sniveling mutterings of the Legislative branch.
#6
I googled Matthew DeBord and found a trail of mostly free alt-weekly bylines, rubbish for The Nation, and a gig as editor for Wine Spectator! He's also covered tennis.
Petraeus will be taught and discussed for fifty years; long after DeBord is completely forgotten, even by those who knew him.
#7
I volunteer to take my Bronze Star and jam it up this a-hole's nose to give him a lesson. Most of my medlas were peacetime to ya dumbsh*t. We won the cold war on those.
This stupid f**k obviously doenst realize the regulations REQUIRE the wear of your awards, in proper order of precedence. You can't just play fashion fag and say "oooh these 3 look good and that one clashes".
#9
Despite the official surrenders of both Germany + Japan, fighting still went on various locales. Top Command Officers, as well as everyone else, still had valid fears of sniper potshots, inlcuding from NAVAL GUNS/RIFLES, finding their mark(s)- "SURRENDER" DID NOT MEAN AN AUTOMATIC END TO COMBAT.
#10
"Ulysses S. Grant accepted Robert E. Lee's sword"
Grant did not take Lee's sword, and his terms offered included the stipulation that all Confederate Officers could keep their sidearms and personal belongings. He did not want it. Not that this clown would know American history. Or care...
#11
A fine product of the public indoctrination school system. The man needs to relearn his history. I didn't get many ribbons during my short tour in the army, but I cherish every one of them since I received them after busting my ass in my job. They are a visual resume. Bragging rights. You can literally carry your honor on your chest (not that this mouth-twat knows anything about honor).
Oh, and Grant never took Lee's sword, as was pointed out. In fact, not only were personal side arms for the officers kept, Grant allowed everyone to take home a horse or a mule to begin planting their fields right away. And on top of that, fed the entire army BEFORE they surrendered since they were starving. That act right there kept the south from waging a guerrilla war for years. Too bad Grant and Sherman and the other officers of the Union had their work undone by shithead politicians who wanted to punish instead of incorporate.
#13
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
W. Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 4, Scene 3
#14
So he's a big Patton fan, eh?
Right. If Patton, or even MacArthur, were alive today today and running the show in Iraq, Matthew would be hiding under his bed with soiled pants.
Wonder what he'd think of Hugo if he showed up to testify with all his sashes and sprockets? He'd probably call him "resplendent".
#15
DeBord realizes that when real men like Petraeus walk into a room, what little chance Debord had to get laid just went to zero.
Posted by: ed ||
04/10/2008 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"Which, according to Mr. DeBord, means that Doug McArthur couldn't possibly have had an ego ..."
LOL!!!!!!!! Thanks for that one, very good.
IIUC, some european states in the past had civil servants were uniforms, with medals for distinction, etc. And private life civilians displayed certain really high distinctions if they had them - IE French military veterans, out of uniform, still wore a Cross of the Legion of Honor on their civilian clothes.
Our society really doesnt do stuff like that - even the suit and tie, the mark of being white collar vs blue collar, has been in a long retreat against workplace casual. Civilian society, in this as in some other things, has become more distant from the military, and this certainly creates problems of understanding.
#17
FWIW - Many awards to civil servants (i.e., bureaucrats) are also in the form of medals. Unless the recipient is uniformed, they aren't worn and don't come with the ribbons this asshat refers to, but they are honest-to-goodness medals. That's just the way the government gives some awards.
#19
And private life civilians displayed certain really high distinctions if they had them - IE French military veterans, out of uniform, still wore a Cross of the Legion of Honor on their civilian clothes.
I have never seen this (but I don't know people who got a Legion of Honor in combat). However I know people who got it for civilian achievements and what they wear is a red thread about 2mm wide and 1cm long extending between the upper "button eye" (don't know the english term) and teh rim of their vest
As an aside every year hundreds of people get the Legion of Honor. From actors to journalist, from doctors to majors. And most of them are not even first league figures in their field. Also it is more or less automatic for people who reach a certain rank as civil servants or in the military:
no general without a Legion of Honor.
For that reason the Croix de guerre (War cros) who is awrded only for combat feats has ended being more coveted by the French military despite being officially lower ranked than Legion of Honor.
#20
Gen Petraeus may deserve all his decorations but there really is a problem.
A fair number of military officials have been decorated for basically completing paper work. Similarly some non-military officials have been awarded metals basically for attending meetings of some interagency group.
#22
So, basically this creep is asking for *more* wars, to allow our Officers to get *battle experience*, is that what I'm hearing?
As someone already mentioned, Gen. Petraeus came up through the ranks in an era that was generally *peaceful*. Thus, there wasn't much opportunity for him to see war action. That's pretty basic cause-meet-effect rationalization, which this yay-hoo has none of.
Posted by: BA ||
04/10/2008 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#23
DeBorg's attack on the general is a free shot. He cannot fight and will never know the result of battle, but he has a forum and he used it to attack another nam. This will and can go on unless and until he is confronted in the street. After pissing his pants he will respect his fellow men out of fear and doubt if not out of honor or position.
#25
A fair number of military officials have been decorated for basically completing paper work
Actually its not a problem.
Those of us in the military know and can read the "ticket punchers". But when you see a combat award, or a commendation medal, you know the difference. And the difference between my joint service commendation medal and my army achievement medal is pretty large - and there are joint service achievement and army commendations in between. But my bronze star is far and above those others. So those are the ones that come first couple rows in my ribbon rack. But precedence isn't necessarily the same as importance to the soldier. A good example of that is my Saudi medal with the sabers and palm, and my kuwait liberation medal next to it. Although these are at the very bottom of my ribbon rack and below my "I graduated from boot camp" ribbon, they mean far more to me than almost any of the other awards.
Bronze star, JSCM, ACM, JSAM, AAM, GCM, NDSM (got that one for being called up), SWASM (DShield/Storm), etc. Those are most of the "earned" medals/ribbons I have. Plus the run of the mill things like the OSR for overseas service and "Rainbow Bright" ASR for bascially graduating boot camp (which is more than the punk writer has done).
Civilians may not know what those rows of colors mean, but I do - and so do my fellow soldiers and veterans. And they can read my ribbons and know where I have been (and also that I am old, since I don't have any awards post 1996).
The only thing I am proud but kinda embarrassed to wear are my jump wings. I earned them but only 8 total jumps my entire time, 5 of them in training (thus the title "5 jump chump" for people that go train just to get the wings).
Your first jump that "really counts" is the first one with your unit, your "cherry jump. Me and others made with panties on our helmets, pretty comical sight.
#26
For senior naval officers, it's acceptable practice to wear a single row of your highest-ranked ribbons for daily wear.
Thing is (based on experience) - going to Capitol Hill requires dress uniform. Showing up for a hearing (even as a flunky) requires/required the full ribbon display. And you get to be treated like crap as a reward.
Just another of those many 'incentives' that encourage shipdrivers to stay out of Beltway assignment.
#27
Didn't know Navy Officers had that flexibility - Flag Rank required, right?
I guess it lets them reduce the clutter. I know one SoF guy that had 6 rows, and a lot of them were foreign national awards - he looked like a Peruvian Admiral in full formal dress uniform.
#29
OS, The single row also goes to the enlisted as well; but as mentioned, for daily wear. Inspections and other full dress occasions call for all the lettuce.
DeBord is a santimonious shiteater.
any medals or other commendations handed out have to go through some level of sanity check, its not like the temporary tattoos you can buy from a vending machine. witness the 'Stolen Valor Act,' to punish those that wear unearned ribbons / medals.
To mhw and you comment re: paperwork: our squadron had an aircraft accident in which the enlisted crewmen in back died and the 2 aviators lived; they were ejected through the forward windscreens (night crash in a SH-60F helicopter while on final to the boat). the co-pilot a USN-R got the brunt of the blame by the HAC ( helicopter aircraft commander) and ultimately turned in his wings and resigned, but the true story was that the HAC was at the controls when they crashed, but he was an 'admiral's kid' and there was some sort of bs involved. at the end of his tour w/ the squadron, it was typical for the awarding of a Navy Achievement Medal. but 'Junior' didn't get one; the unstated reason was: you killed 2 kids and ruined a third.
this is the level of sanity checking i am referring to.
#32
Corfams are for people that cannot master kiwi an cotton balls.
And for the most part I never wore Army "Class A" Greens other than for inspections. On occasion I did wear my dress blues (which basically require ALL the ribbons you've earned). Wonder why Gen Petraeus didn't wear his Blues? They are transitioning out those Class A Greens anyway.
At to the best of my recollection, I never had any situation where I could exercise any choice of ribbons or medals in the Army. Besides that, fatigues and BDUS were the rule for me and most every in the Army. Navy doesn't crawl in the mud, so I guess they do get to dress a bit snappier (to this day, I envy the chiefs and their khaki).
#33
OS: if we didn't do the corfams we were not a team player,
and while wash khakis are great while crawling over, under and around your airplane d'jour, the CNT (Certified naval Twill,aka double knits) went south just looking at a can of grease. of course back then we just opened up a 5 gallon can of liquid freon and de-greased them, and poured the fluid overboard........had a rotorhead CO that went ballistic when this transplanted tailhooker came to work in wash khakis. we had a little talk and i promised to keep a set of CNTs in the car because i was not content to just sit behind the desk, but would 'help' the real wrench twisters. near as i remember they stayed in the car....
By Rondi Adamson
Toronto - "Everybody favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground," 20th-century American journalist Heywood Broun once wrote. The real test of mettle is allowing free speech to thrive while axes aggressively grind. Just ask Canadian publisher Ezra Levant and author Mark Steyn.
In February 2006, Levant's conservative magazine, the now-online-only Western Standard, reprinted the Danish Muhammad cartoons. Shortly thereafter, Syed Soharwardy, the national president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, filed a Koranic-verse laden complaint against Mr. Levant with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, claiming discrimination.
Canada's Human Rights Commissions (HRC) are government agencies, not courts. They were set up, starting in the 1960s, to fight job and housing discrimination offensive acts, not words. Borne of good intention, some argue they have paved a path to politically correct hell.
Those behind the creation of the commissions maintain they were never meant to impede free speech a right guaranteed under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that "thought crime" cases represent a fraction of the commissions' work.
Those behind the creation of the commissions maintain they were never meant to impede free speech a right guaranteed under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that "thought crime" cases represent a fraction of the commissions' work.
As many of those complaints were brought against crackpot anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, or Christian fundamentalists expressing extreme antigay views, few Canadians wasted a moment worrying about them. Therein lies the cautionary tale. The odious have to be free to speak provided they are not inciting violence or none of us are.
With limited exceptions, the aforementioned cases received little attention. Then along came Levant. Even those to whom he is not beloved are waking up to the dangers of a lumbering system in which there are no real rules of procedure, the accused must pay their own way and could ultimately be compelled to pay a fine and apologize, while the complainant relies on taxpayers to protect his or her "human right" to not feel offended.
Levant is preternaturally media savvy, and when he made his appearance before the Alberta commission this January he had it videotaped, promptly posting the recordings on YouTube. Some 400,000 people have watched his bristly exchanges with the hapless commission representative. Levant, a lawyer, peppered her with questions of his own and reminded her of the freedoms that the HRC was trampling upon:
"For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights, and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values."
The resulting publicity proved too much for Imam Soharwardy. He dropped his complaint after two years and much public money spent, stating his newfound appreciation for the values of his adopted country: "I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society." Levant still faces a similar complaint from the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities.
This, in turn, has brought unprecedented scrutiny to complaints against Maclean's, a mainstream magazine that's a mix of Time and US Weekly. Though some call it right-of-center, its main agenda appears to be getting attention. (Last fall, Maclean's ran a cover story critical of the war in Iraq featuring President Bush made to appear as Saddam Hussein.)
In October 2006, Maclean's ran an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It." (Mr. Steyn is a Maclean's columnist.) Bothered by the Steyn reprints, four law students (since joined by a fifth) asserted that Maclean's presented an inflammatory view of Islam. The students met with Maclean's editor Kenneth Whyte, and asked him to publish a lengthy response, as though a magazine editor were required to cater content to indignant readers.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently did something it was too craven to do two years ago. During a news segment regarding the HRC, Canada's public broadcaster aired briefly, fleetingly the Danish cartoons.
Mr. Whyte, quite rightly, refused 27 letters to the editor regarding Steyn's story had already been published. So the students, with the backing of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), filed complaints against the magazine.
If the HRC found Levant's YouTube clips formidable, it won't know what hit it when media mogul Ted Rogers, the owner of Maclean's, fights back if the case gets that far. Since January, op-eds supportive of Maclean's and Levant's positions from even left-leaning newspapers have abounded. A motion has been put forth in Canada's parliament to remove the section of the Human Rights Act that prescribes speech. Organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and PEN Canada (some of whose members can't abide Levant's and Steyn's politics) have called for similar amendments and for the complaints against Maclean's and Levant to be dropped.
The reverberations don't end there. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently did something it was too craven to do two years ago. During a news segment regarding the HRC, Canada's public broadcaster aired briefly, fleetingly the Danish cartoons. This is heartening. Much of the Canadian and Western left has seemed far too eager in recent years to buckle in the face of, and even sympathize with, Islamist extremism. Let's hope these cases bring about an understanding of what's at stake.
Rondi Adamson is a Canadian writer.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/10/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
It is a long way from over. Now one of the HRC's former staff members/complainants is suing half the front bench of the Canadian conservative blogosphere.
Reading Dreams From My Father, Part Ten Jim Geraghty, "Campaign Spot" @ National Review
. . . I'm formulating a theory about Barack Obama. (It's entirely possible that I'm off base on this, or that I'm projecting my reactions to his experiences onto him.) I'm wondering if despite his exceedingly cool, calm, pleasant demeanor, Obama is a much angrier guy than he lets on. Not swearing at colleagues and blowing-off-steam angry (as John McCain reputedly is), but that he's driven by a quiet, white-hot, continually burning anger, seeing great injustice everywhere, and compelling him to accumulate more and more power to set things right as only he can.
And I suspect that anger is driven by Obama's feeling of betrayal by his father.
I'm up to page 178 of this book, and while the reader has been told that Obama's father departed shortly after he was born, we've gotten only the most fleeting explanation as to why. We've heard of his father's death, his father's visit when Obama is a boy, letters the two exchanged, a few stories Obama was told of how his father acted as a young man... but so far, this book is constructed as a mystery: Why did Barack Hussein Obama Sr. leave? And why did he only return to his son once, for a few weeks?
(Is it possible I'm projecting? Sure. I became a new dad in September, and I'm loving it. I can't imagine voluntarily leaving my boy and moving off to another continent and not seeing him for a decade and change.)
Anyway, I thought of that theory when Obama interviews for his position as a community organizer:
I sat down and told him a little bit about myself.
"Hmmph." He nodded, taking notes on a dog-eared legal pad. "You must be angry about something."
"What do you mean by that?"
He shrugged. "I don't know what exactly. But something. Don't get me wrong - anger's a requirement for the job. The only reason anybody decides to become an organizer. Well-adjusted people find more relaxing work."
Posted by: Mike ||
04/10/2008 12:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
In his best-selling autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," Obama describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student, "Ray." The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa, is half black and half Japanese. In an interview with the Tribune on Saturday, Kakugawa said he always considered himself mixed race, like so many of his friends in Hawaii, and was not an angry young black man.
He said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa said, were not about race. "Not even close," he said, adding that Obama was dealing with "some inner turmoil" in those days.
"But it wasn't a race thing," he said. "Barry's biggest struggles then were missing his parents. His biggest struggles were his feelings of abandonment. The idea that his biggest struggle was race is [bull]."
April 10, 2008 -- A GAMBLE that proved too costly.
That's how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran's state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous "uprising." Rather, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse.
Tehran's decision to make the gamble was based on three assumptions:
* Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have the courage to defend Basra at the risk of burning his bridges with the Islamic Republic in Iran.
* The international force would be in no position to intervene in the Basra battle. The British, who controlled Basra until last December, had no desire to return, especially if this meant getting involved in fighting. The Americans, meanwhile, never had enough troops to finish off al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, let alone fight Iran and its local militias on a new front.
* The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties.
The Iranian plan - developed by Revolutionary Guard's Quds (Jerusalem) unit, which is in charge of "exporting the Islamic Revolution" - aimed at a quick victory. To achieve that, Tehran spent vast sums persuading local Iraqi security personnel to switch sides or to remain neutral.
The hoped-for victory was to be achieved as part of a massive Shiite uprising spreading from Baghdad to the south via heartland cities such as Karbala, Kut and al-Amarah. A barrage of rockets and missiles against the "Green Zone" in Baghdad and armed attacks on a dozen police stations and Iraqi army barracks in the Shiite heartland were designed to keep the Maliki government under pressure.
To seize control of Basra, Quds commanders used units known as Special Groups. These consist of individuals recruited from among the estimated 1.8 million Iraqi refugees who spent more than two decades in Iran during Saddam Hussein's reign. They returned to Iraq shortly after Saddam's fall and started to act as liaisons between Quds and local Shiite militias.
In last month's operation, Quds commanders used the name and insignia of the Mahdi Army, a militia originally created by the maverick cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, as a cover for the Special Groups.
Initially, Quds commanders appeared to have won their bet. Their Special Groups and Mahdi Army allies easily seized control of key areas of Basra when more than 500 Iraqi security personnel abandoned their positions and disappeared into the woodwork.
Soon, however, the tide turned. Maliki proved that he had the courage to lead the new Iraqi Security Force (ISF) into battle, even if that meant confronting Iran. The ISF showed that it had the capacity and the will to fight.
Only a year ago, the ISF had been unable to provide three brigades (some 9,000 men) to help the US-led "surge" restore security in Baghdad. This time, the ISF had no difficulty deploying 15 brigades (30,000 men) for the battle of Basra.
Led by Gen. Mohan al-Freiji, the Iraqi force sent to Basra was the largest that the ISF had put together since its creation five years ago. This was the first time that the ISF was in charge of a major operation from start to finish and was fighting a large, well-armed adversary without US advisers.
During the Basra battles, the ISF did call on British and US forces to provide some firepower, especially via air strikes against enemy positions. But, in another first, the ISF used its own aircraft to transport troops and materiel and relied on its own communication system.
The expected call from the Najaf ayatollahs to stop "Shiite fratricide" failed to materialize. Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the top cleric in Iraq, gave his blessings to the Maliki-launched operation. More broadly, the Shiite uprisings in Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and other cities that Quds commanders had counted upon didn't happen. The "Green Zone" wasn't evacuated in panic under a barrage of rockets and missiles.
After more than a week of fighting, the Iraqis forced the Quds commanders to call for a cease-fire through Sadr. The Iraqi commander agreed - provided that the Quds force directly guaranteed it. To highlight Iran's role in the episode, he insisted that the Quds force dispatch a senior commander to finalize the accord.
The Iran-backed side lost more than 600 men, with more than 1,000 injured. The ISF lost 88 dead and 122 wounded.
Some analysts suggest this was the first war between new Iraq and the Islamic Republic. If so, the Iraqis won.
To be sure, the Iranian-backed side lost partly because Iran couldn't use its full might, especially its air force. (That almost certainly would've led to war between Iran and the US-led coalition in Iraq.)
The battle for Basra showed that Iraq has a new army that's willing and able to fight. If the 15 brigades that fought are a sample, the new Iraq may have an effective army of more than 300,000 before year's end.
But the battle also showed that the ISF still lacks the weapons systems, including attack aircraft and longer-range missiles, needed to transform tactical victories into strategic ones. The Iranian-sponsored Special Groups and their Mahdi Army allies simply disappeared from the scene, taking their weapons with them, waiting for another fight.
Tehran tried to test the waters in Basra and, as an opportunist power, would've annexed southern Iraq under a quisling administration had that been attainable at a low cost. Once it became clear that the cost might be higher than the Quds force expected, Tehran opted to back down.
Yet this was just the first round. The struggle for Iraq isn't over.
#1
If the NY Post story is accurate, it would also explain 1) why the ISF threw in a 'green' unit into the fray, 2) why the mortar/rocket targeting in the Green zone was so accurate,3)why IP defections happened so quickly and 4) why US 'expertise' wasn't brought in at the start.
#2
I'm surprised that Iran did not wait until just before the U.S. election or (if a Democratic victory) until after a new president.
There is no way Iran could commit it's own forces with the U.S military in Iraq. They would be defeated on the ground and Iran itself would be subject to air attack.
#4
If we gave Afghanistan to China as Lebensraum - (like Tibet and Siberia are) then Iran would find a populous powerful greedy neighbor sharing a long border.... just thinking....
#6
Al-Quds is also sorely mistaken in thinking they could "woodwork" their way out of this disaster. Both Maliki's internal security forces as SOCOM are going to be on southern Iraq like flies on you-know-what, until they root out every trace of al-Quds.
This is really terrible. It looks like the murdering Americans have made a real mess of things in Baghdad. Again. AP:
BAGHDAD (AP) Errant mortar shells slammed into houses and a funeral tent Wednesday, leaving three children among the dead during clashes in a Shiite militia stronghold under siege by American and Iraqi forces on the fifth anniversary of the U.S. capture of the capital.
The fighting came as the U.S. military announced the deaths of five more soldiers. That raised the number of American troop deaths to 17 since Sunday.
Many Iraqis said hopes that followed the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein have been quashed.
"On this day five years ago we were dreaming of a bright future, but now we know that our dream has turned into a long nightmare," said Khalid Ibrahim, a 45-year-old teacher from the mainly Sunni area of Azamiyah.
Not only did the Americans quash everyone's hopes, they're killing children.
Hold on a sec. Scroll down 16 paragraphs:
At 10 a.m., two mortar shells apparently fired by suspected Shiite extremists against the security forces fell short and instead struck a funeral tent and a house, killing seven people including three children, and wounding 27, according to police and hospital officials.
Hey, it was Shiite militiamen who killed those children. I never would have guessed if, like 90 percent of readers, I didn't make it past a lot of warmed-over America-bashing doom-and-gloom boilerplate to graph 16.
According to the AP, the Shiites killed the children accidentally because their aim was off. It doesn't say how the AP knows that. I don't think the AP was embedded with those Shiites, or that the AP would know its azimuths well enough to know what the Shiites intended to hit, even if it was embedded with those Shiite mortarmen. Nice of the AP to make excuses, but the Shiites meant to terrorize that neighborhood. Or maybe those Shiites are in fact grossly incompetent and have no business firing off mortars. In either case it sounds like Moqtada al-Sadr needs to call a board of inquiry or a court martial or something and get to the bottom of this. At the very least, issue a fatwa. And how come the AP doesn't have any quotes from anyone condemning those Shiite killers? They never seem to have any trouble finding them when they report on the Americans killing people accidentally on purpose.
Now, that has me thinking about the other not-so-subtle message in this story, that the Americans quashed everyone's hopes. Maybe the Shiite militias, and al-Qaeda for that matter, had something to do with it, the hope quashing. With all those errant carbombs and errant summary executions. I'm pretty sure the Shiite militias had something to do with the heat on Sadr City, with a week's worth of heavy rocket barrages that finally get a passing mention even farther down. Also, I'm curious why the AP always refers to "U.S.-bacekd Iraqi troops," instead of just calling them "Iraqi troops," but doesn't call the Shiite militias "Iranian-backed Shiite militias." It's a mystery, one of many in this story.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/10/2008 10:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The MSM, propaganda department for American defeat. 5th column whores.
A growing number of Democrats have falsely accused Sen. John McCain of "promising" 100 years of war in Iraq. It's an intentional distortion, since it's long since been clarified and elaborated upon.
In fact, McCain's point was that the presence of American forces promotes stability. That's been the case in Europe and Asia where Americans have been stationed for more than half a century. It's been true in the Balkans since the 1990s when President Clinton sent troops there. America's military plays a beneficial role when it eliminates America's enemies; it does so also when it stays on to prevent those enemies from reemerging.
A hundred years from now Americans might still be fighting militant Islamists in Iraq and other places. What could be worse than that? A hundred years from now America and the West could have been defeated by militant Islamists.
But there is a hard truth that McCain did not state: A hundred years from now Americans might still be fighting militant Islamists in Iraq and other places. What could be worse than that? A hundred years from now America and the West could have been defeated by militant Islamists. Is there an echo in here?
Al-Qaeda, Iran's ruling mullahs, Hezbollah and others militant jihadis have told us what they are fighting for. The well-known Islamist, Hassan al-Banna, described the movement's goals succinctly: "to dominate ... to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." He said that in 1928. Al-Banna was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Who would have believed then that his heirs would acquire the wealth, power and lethality they enjoy today? All based on oil money that flows out of our pockets in an uninterrupted stream.
Who can say where they may be a hundred years from now? Who can say where the West will be? Survival is not an entitlement. It must be earned by every generation. The way to bring global jihad, to a screeching halt, to send the would-be lords and masters of the world back to sitting in their tents and beating their women, would be to cease buying oil -- any at all. Since we've been screwing around with "alternative energy sources" since the early 70s -- let's say the last 30 years -- the record sez that's not gonna happen, despite the amount of wind expended, wind that doesn't pass through turbines in the hilles. It's not that it can't be done, but that we won't do it.
The other way to bring global jihad to a screeching halt is to separate the would-be lord and masters of the world from their wealth. It's an accident of geography that these jokers sit on oceans of oil, an accident that could be remedied if push really came to shove. The record to date sez that's not gonna happen either, despite the political wind blowing. Like with alternative energy, it's not that it can't be done, but that we won't do it.
So the most important question not asked of General David Petreaus when he testified before Congress this week is how to maximize our chances of winning the long, global war in which we are engaged. Retreating from key battlefields would not appear to be the most promising strategy. Yet opponents of the Iraq war continue to argue for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. They were unmoved by the most pungent point Petraeus made regarding progress in Iraq. "We are fighting al-Qaeda every day," he said. "We have our teeth in their jugular and we need to keep it there." The Dems are very much the party of Vietnam. There we suffered 50,000 dead. They're determined to discount the brilliance of a military operation lasting five years that's had 4000 dead. That casualty figures are the measure of our success, regardless of the individual tragedies.
Senator Carl Levin, in remarks just prior to the questioning of Petraeus, had next to nothing to say about al-Qaeda or the Iranian-backed militias Americans and Iraqis also have been battling. Instead, he insisted that Iraq remains mired in a civil war, a talking point long past its sell-by date. Levin is no different from the Dems in general. Without facts to support them they've got to intentionally misinterpret. The civil war was a Sunni-Shia affair, consciously set up by Zarqawi. Abu Ayub al-Masri hasn't been able to keep it up, and AQI has been ground down to a shadow of its old self -- 15 percent of the size it used to be, according to a recent article.
Other opponents of the Petraeus mission contended that pulling out of Iraq would free up American forces for Afghanistan. But Iraq is the heart of the Arab and Muslim world. Afghanistan, by contrast, is a strategic backwater. What's more, in Afghanistan we are mostly fighting al-Qaeda's junior partner, the Taliban. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have been reconstituting al-Qaeda HQ across the border in the wilder reaches of Pakistan. No one arguing against the Petraeus mission has provided even the vaguest outline of an improved strategy to confront al-Qaeda forces there. Those hollering for more attention for Afghanistan have a certain amount of sense on their side, but they're ignoring priorities. The heart of the Arab world gives us borders with Syria, Soddy Arabia, and Iran, all problem children. Afghanistan gives us proximity to Qaeda HQ in Chitral. The Talibs are an irritant. In the end they'll make a peace with their Pashtun brothers in the Afghan government and Pashtunistan will be back to memorizing the Koran and beating their women. I'd have put a lot more emphasis on zapping Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar, regardless of which side of the border they're on. When the Qaeda leadership is taken out it will be as a result of intel giving us good enough data for targeting, not as the result of ground operations. On the other hand, if I was the political leadership, I'd be developing the hell out of northern Afghanistan, turning it into something to shame Pashtunistan. Start with the Pandjir Valley and work out. And make any wandering Pashtuns feel unwelcome outside their own areas.
For nations as well as for individuals, both winning and losing can be habit-forming. How many people have you heard say that America lost in Vietnam -- and so what? In 1979, the Iranian mullahs seized our embassy and took our diplomats hostage and we made them pay no price -- and so what? In 1983, Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanese proxy, bombed the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon and we did nothing much -- and so what? Ten years later, we retreated from Somalia -- and so what? The World Trade Towers were bombed for the first time that same year and we held no regimes or movements responsible -- and so what?
America was seen as a toothless tiger --"a society that cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle," in the words of Saddam Hussein.
But you know what? America was seen as a toothless tiger --"a society that cannot accept 10,000 dead in one battle," in the words of Saddam Hussein. He instructed "all militant believers" to "target (American) interests wherever they may be." Bin Laden declared the United States "a weak horse." In 2006, al-Zawahiri predicted that the U.S. would go down to defeat in Iraq. It is, he said, "only a matter of time." Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, added: "I advise all those who place their trust in the Americans to learn the lesson of Vietnam ...and to know that when the Americans lose this war --and lose it they will, Allah willing -- they will abandon them to their fate, just like they did to all those who placed their trust in them throughout history."
Let's suppose it will require a hundred years to defeat such people, the ideas they espouse and the movements they represent. Do we really have anything more important to do?
(Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. E-mail him at cliff(at)defenddemocracy.org)
This article starring:
Hassan al-Banna
Muslim Brotherhood
Posted by: Fred ||
04/10/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency
#1
HMMMMM, that reminds me - a "weak horse".
Compare wid WAFF.com Poster Thread > AMERICA MUST BE BALKANIZED! And not necess due to being defeated by Radical Islam-only either.
#2
I want a permanent US presence in the Middle East. But I don't want ground troops dodging IED traps. Neither does Senator McCain. Last week he used a Letterman appearance to attack alleged Rumsfeld' "mismanagement" of the Iraq war. Frankly, McCain will produce a position that will gather broad bi-partisan support, and the troops will support him as well. Hardline GOP might not like to hear explicit or tacit attacks on a sitting GOP President, but McCain has no plans of lying his way into the White House. The Surge was Act 2; watch for Act 3.
#3
Buried in the tome of our record, if not burned by the Socialist orthodoxy that permeates our institutions of 'learning', is the story of a hundred years of confronting tribes and the vagaries of conflict and peace in our growth as a nation. The Socialist Guilt War against the West and particularly America doesn't permit the telling of the century of constant warfare and nation building that gives us the bounties and freedoms that not only do Americans enjoy, but most democratic people in the world. Had there not been an America with the ability to apply all of its resources in those critical years of the 20th Century, the authoritarians and totalitarians certainly would have dominated the landscape by the close of that century, which. of course, the socialist believed they were entitled to.
#4
The way to bring global jihad, to a screeching halt, to send the would-be lords and masters of the world back to sitting in their tents and beating their women, would be to cease buying oil -- any at all.
Or to just take the oil, pack the squatters off to their desert tents, and sell the crude at a discount to ourselves and at a premium to our enemies. Use some of the proceeds to fund massive endowments to Ivy League and equivalent institutions and suggest funding will be withdrawn unless the anti-Semites, Truthers and Communists are fired.
#5
We will break the oil monopoly. The current prices are unsustainable and we have technology on our side.
We've already got diesel which was originally designed to run on peanut oil. We've got improving hybrid tech and electric car tech can only behelped by the fast recharging batteries in the pipeline. If we give up on the dream of hydrogen the pieces are all there.
Then add the oil reserves recently found in the Dakotas and that bit in Alaska and we can cut our alternate energy with oil as we ramp up.
All we really need is some political leadership to make sure that we don't forget why we're dumping oil when prices are falling. Use the green argument, use the Islam is crazy argument but do something to nudge us away.
#6
I learned in college how modernism has spoiled and destroyed indiginous cultures around the world. It is practically our duty to relieve the bediuin of the burden of their oil and modernism and progress. It clearly conflicts with their native ways.
It's the only humane thing to do really and only a racist would insist they have a right to property when the Beduin, as nomadic people, have never believed in borders.
#7
How different would the world be if the Zionist movement were convinced to create a state at the mouth of the Euphrates and the Jews had all the oil from Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia.
Heck, next time the Arabs pop off perhaps that option should be floated.
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.
Now, that has me thinking about the other not-so-subtle message in this story, that the Americans quashed everyone's hopes. Maybe the Shiite militias, and al-Qaeda for that matter, had something to do with it, the hope quashing. With all those errant carbombs and errant summary executions. I'm pretty sure the Shiite militias had something to do with the heat on Sadr City, with a week's worth of heavy rocket barrages that finally get a passing mention even farther down. Also, I'm curious why the AP always refers to "U.S.-bacekd Iraqi troops," instead of just calling them "Iraqi troops," but doesn't call the Shiite militias "Iranian-backed Shiite militias." It's a mystery, one of many in this story.
