This blog is devoted to armed conflict. Although the issue of Heath care is not ARMED conflict, the ideological conflict that is demonstrated by this issue is of a nature that is similar to many issues that have resulted in open warfare in the past.
I am going off my topic of warfare on this post because we are being bombarded with information on health care reform. President Obama’s speech last week had NO mention of the current war and was entirely devoted to the topic of health care. As I have stated in the past, the news media is outstanding regarding political issues, political events and political analysis. This debate about health care reform is no exception. In war, (As with most other things) it is generally best to stick to your strengths.
Throughout our history, the United States has given many gifts to mankind. The many inventions our people have made that have enabled the people of the world to enjoy a more advanced lifestyle. Another gift to the world has been our system of governance and economics, which encourage these inventions to occur. (Capitalism) Over the past 4 decades, our ability to lead the world in so many ways has been diminished greatly. One of the little strengths that the United States still has is our health care system. We still lead the entire world with our breakthroughs in medical technology and techniques.
My question is: WHY the hell do we wish to drastically change this? So that it is cheaper? You know the old saying: YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. So if health care becomes free, how will this make it better?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Obama's speech
Last night, I watched most of President Obama’s speech. I have my own opinion about health care, but I noticed that he did not attempt to speak about any other subject. Maybe this is just me, but I consider the act of killing people to be THE most important subject that our President should be dealing with. I understand that he must deal with a host of other issues, but to address a joint session of Congress without discussing the war at hand seems like misplaced priority. Maybe he will address this issue at some future point. Once again, I can be wrong, but I suspect that his idea is that the war will gradually slow down (Now that we are disengaging in Iraq) to some acceptable level where it can then be just a back burner issue.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Withdrawal from Afghanistan?
A worldwide obligation exists for all Muslims to "Kill the occupiers" of ‘Muslim lands’. The nation-state of Islam is alive and well in Iraq and Afghanistan (And a bunch of other Islamic countries) as is being seen today. If memory serves, then senator Obama was NEVER in favor of invading Iraq and has been in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq ever since. Three years ago he described the war in Iraq as being the ‘wrong war’ and later that the ‘surge’ was a failure. Now that we are faced with a similar situation, will President Obama favor a withdrawal from Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is NOT the same as Iraq. All wars are different. One indicator is that the level of violence is rising in Afghanistan and many people interpret this as losing the war. This is a very mistaken interpretation. Even when winning, it is possible to be on the defensive, even for extended periods of time. Rising levels of violence in warfare is common as war progress. Wars are won by raising the level of violence to a point where your enemy either cannot or will not match or exceed. The point is, rising levels of violence is NOT an accurate indicator of one side winning or losing. If this is the case, what will we do now?
Many Americans favor withdrawal from Afghanistan. The belief is that the war will then wind down, we will then be out of the war directly. I am guessing that we Americans believe that we will then be left alone, like the Vietnamese left us alone after our withdrawal from Vietnam. (And after the fall of South Vietnam) I am very interested in seeing how President Obama reacts to all of this. After all, the war in Afghanistan was the ‘right’ war. I imagine that he will persist for at least the next year or two. If he remains true to his convictions (that this war will NOT be won by the military, but instead won by police and the rule of law) then we can probably expect a wind down of military operations in Afghanistan followed by a withdrawal of military personnel.
Afghanistan is NOT the same as Iraq. All wars are different. One indicator is that the level of violence is rising in Afghanistan and many people interpret this as losing the war. This is a very mistaken interpretation. Even when winning, it is possible to be on the defensive, even for extended periods of time. Rising levels of violence in warfare is common as war progress. Wars are won by raising the level of violence to a point where your enemy either cannot or will not match or exceed. The point is, rising levels of violence is NOT an accurate indicator of one side winning or losing. If this is the case, what will we do now?
Many Americans favor withdrawal from Afghanistan. The belief is that the war will then wind down, we will then be out of the war directly. I am guessing that we Americans believe that we will then be left alone, like the Vietnamese left us alone after our withdrawal from Vietnam. (And after the fall of South Vietnam) I am very interested in seeing how President Obama reacts to all of this. After all, the war in Afghanistan was the ‘right’ war. I imagine that he will persist for at least the next year or two. If he remains true to his convictions (that this war will NOT be won by the military, but instead won by police and the rule of law) then we can probably expect a wind down of military operations in Afghanistan followed by a withdrawal of military personnel.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Need to know
I am going to discuss this with some close friends and thought it was important enough to post.
The war has yet to begin. The issues at the root cause of the terrorist (irregular) warfare of today are so large and commonly backed by such large populations that a large-scale war is inevitable. Issues that are as critical and important as slavery and loyalty to state over Federal government (Islam AS a government) are so numerous that it can only be a matter of time. What is missing on our side is the all-important fact of knowing who our enemy is.
One problem we face is our news source. The news media has strengths and weakness like any other human endeavor.
Media strengths:
I) political issues, news and analysis (World-class)
II) Warfare facts(Our side more accurate than information on enemy)
Media weakness: warfare analysis (4th grade level understanding of basic concepts)
Five helicopters shot down yesterday. (Yes) This is seen as a setback or defeat. (No)
A single battle or campaign usually is not enough to decide a war. Even though the war in Iraq is not over, why did surge work?
Best surface on planet Earth for mechanized forces are: (In order)
1) Water
2) Desert
3) Open land, Great plains of North America – Steppes of Russia and Ukraine. Only natural obstacles are rivers.
Worst (In order)
1) Mountains
2) Swamps
3) Cities and forests
The war in Iraq moved into the cities because our enemy was wiped out in the open desert. We could then isolate each battlefield. We isolated each town and/or city neighborhood. Munitions and supplies are heavy. Our enemy could not supply and reinforce. Once we took it, we had enough force to occupy properly.
The United States is now on the strategic defensive. Our front-line troops are now the police. Our soldiers will now be expected to act the part. (Except Afghanistan until we can withdraw and even then restraint will be exercised far more than in a more strategic offensive posture) We will prosecute enemy ‘detainees’ with legal process similar if not exactly like within civilian courts. The result cannot be anything else but the war coming to us.
Think I am kidding? A few years ago, I told some close friends that we were winning the war and they laughed. I might be wrong about many things, but this is my area of expertise. In 1970 or 1971 I read in the Chicago Tribune that the U.S. could not win in Vietnam because the VC and NVA controlled the countryside. Was not Iraq the opposite in this case? Yet we could still not win? (Actually, the original plan and execution in Vietnam WAS working until it was changed in 1961) I was 12 or 13 years old at the time I read that article. I have been studying this subject a long time.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS WORK:
Be prepared. Have an emergency kit. Canned food, water, first aid and medical supplies. A plan if the EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) disables all transportation and electrial systems. Which way is the wind literally blowing? First decision: Stay and hunker down or flee? Where to go if your car is out of action? If car is OK, what route to take to what destination?
The war has yet to begin. The issues at the root cause of the terrorist (irregular) warfare of today are so large and commonly backed by such large populations that a large-scale war is inevitable. Issues that are as critical and important as slavery and loyalty to state over Federal government (Islam AS a government) are so numerous that it can only be a matter of time. What is missing on our side is the all-important fact of knowing who our enemy is.
One problem we face is our news source. The news media has strengths and weakness like any other human endeavor.
Media strengths:
I) political issues, news and analysis (World-class)
II) Warfare facts(Our side more accurate than information on enemy)
Media weakness: warfare analysis (4th grade level understanding of basic concepts)
Five helicopters shot down yesterday. (Yes) This is seen as a setback or defeat. (No)
A single battle or campaign usually is not enough to decide a war. Even though the war in Iraq is not over, why did surge work?
Best surface on planet Earth for mechanized forces are: (In order)
1) Water
2) Desert
3) Open land, Great plains of North America – Steppes of Russia and Ukraine. Only natural obstacles are rivers.
Worst (In order)
1) Mountains
2) Swamps
3) Cities and forests
The war in Iraq moved into the cities because our enemy was wiped out in the open desert. We could then isolate each battlefield. We isolated each town and/or city neighborhood. Munitions and supplies are heavy. Our enemy could not supply and reinforce. Once we took it, we had enough force to occupy properly.
The United States is now on the strategic defensive. Our front-line troops are now the police. Our soldiers will now be expected to act the part. (Except Afghanistan until we can withdraw and even then restraint will be exercised far more than in a more strategic offensive posture) We will prosecute enemy ‘detainees’ with legal process similar if not exactly like within civilian courts. The result cannot be anything else but the war coming to us.
Think I am kidding? A few years ago, I told some close friends that we were winning the war and they laughed. I might be wrong about many things, but this is my area of expertise. In 1970 or 1971 I read in the Chicago Tribune that the U.S. could not win in Vietnam because the VC and NVA controlled the countryside. Was not Iraq the opposite in this case? Yet we could still not win? (Actually, the original plan and execution in Vietnam WAS working until it was changed in 1961) I was 12 or 13 years old at the time I read that article. I have been studying this subject a long time.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS WORK:
Be prepared. Have an emergency kit. Canned food, water, first aid and medical supplies. A plan if the EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) disables all transportation and electrial systems. Which way is the wind literally blowing? First decision: Stay and hunker down or flee? Where to go if your car is out of action? If car is OK, what route to take to what destination?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Iran cracks down on protesters
This quote is from today’s ACB news web site: "Tuesday's session was the fourth in the trial of more than 100 opposition activists and protesters, Iran's biggest political trial in decades. The defendants — who include some of the country's biggest pro-reform politicians — are accused of trying to topple the Islamic clerical leadership through a "velvet revolution" of mass protests that erupted after the disputed June 12 presidential election."
This is no surprise, although the public trial of so many is. I expected many to be interrogated, (And eventually, executed) although I admit that I expected not to hear much, if anything about it. Like many of the executions that occurred after the fall of the Iranian government in 1979, I did not think that news of these events would reach us for decades. Maybe the Iranian government will allow us to know that they have been sentenced to jail. I still expect most to find unmarked graves without any public press release. After all, these are the very same people who dare to defy the Islamic government. They are considered to be Apostates. The penalty is ‘authentic’, clear and has been enforced for centuries.
This is no surprise, although the public trial of so many is. I expected many to be interrogated, (And eventually, executed) although I admit that I expected not to hear much, if anything about it. Like many of the executions that occurred after the fall of the Iranian government in 1979, I did not think that news of these events would reach us for decades. Maybe the Iranian government will allow us to know that they have been sentenced to jail. I still expect most to find unmarked graves without any public press release. After all, these are the very same people who dare to defy the Islamic government. They are considered to be Apostates. The penalty is ‘authentic’, clear and has been enforced for centuries.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lockerbie bomber released
CNN:
"The man convicted of murdering 270 people by blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, two decades ago received a boisterous welcome when his plane landed in his native Libya on Thursday."
The release surprises me, although his "boisterous" welcome does not. Two things I would like to point out:
1) I am not surprised because so many throughout the Islamic world (Including Libya) believe that he did the right thing. Or else are convinced that he is innocent and was wrongly convicted by the ‘western’ justice system. The west is decadent and prejudiced against anything Muslim or Islamic. (In one way of looking at it, this is correct) The same line of thinking and belief thinks that Israel was behind 9/11 and that the Holocaust did not occur. Once again, the problem here is sheer numbers. So many are defending that way of life.
2) I would have thought that the Obama administration would have been a little more effective in preventing this. Although the U.S. can’t (And should not) interfere with any other country’s judicial system, I would have expected an extradition fight or some other legal moves to stall and prevent this from happening.
In the larger picture, this release will probably not impact much. The man is dying and I doubt he will have enough time to attempt anything directly again. Where we lose is that this man is seen as a hero and doubtless will be listened to and followed in anything that he says.
"The man convicted of murdering 270 people by blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, two decades ago received a boisterous welcome when his plane landed in his native Libya on Thursday."
The release surprises me, although his "boisterous" welcome does not. Two things I would like to point out:
1) I am not surprised because so many throughout the Islamic world (Including Libya) believe that he did the right thing. Or else are convinced that he is innocent and was wrongly convicted by the ‘western’ justice system. The west is decadent and prejudiced against anything Muslim or Islamic. (In one way of looking at it, this is correct) The same line of thinking and belief thinks that Israel was behind 9/11 and that the Holocaust did not occur. Once again, the problem here is sheer numbers. So many are defending that way of life.
2) I would have thought that the Obama administration would have been a little more effective in preventing this. Although the U.S. can’t (And should not) interfere with any other country’s judicial system, I would have expected an extradition fight or some other legal moves to stall and prevent this from happening.
In the larger picture, this release will probably not impact much. The man is dying and I doubt he will have enough time to attempt anything directly again. Where we lose is that this man is seen as a hero and doubtless will be listened to and followed in anything that he says.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Afghanistan
Today, three quarters of Democrats oppose the war in Afghanistan. The big argument against the war in Iraq was that we had ‘dropped the ball’ by taking our focus off of the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was where the REAL war was. It was where we would get the bad guys like Osama Bin Laden. It now appears that most Democrats just want to end the war. You know, just pack up and leave like we did in Vietnam.
This war is NOT going away. This war will not end if we leave Afghanistan. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan as a direct result of 9/11. Vietnam did not begin with a direct upon U.S. soil. On top of this, the attacks on 9/11 were just the latest in a pattern of attacks upon U.S. target. Our waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq forced our enemy to engage our army with poor results for them. If the U.S. does leave Afghanistan, the losses our enemy has been enduring in terms of manpower lost and weapons and material lost will fall dramatically. Our enemy is already adapting to the lower level of attrition as a result of the lower amount of combat that is taking place within Iraq. With an U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan the war will accelerate even faster once our enemy re-deploys.
This war is NOT going away. This war will not end if we leave Afghanistan. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan as a direct result of 9/11. Vietnam did not begin with a direct upon U.S. soil. On top of this, the attacks on 9/11 were just the latest in a pattern of attacks upon U.S. target. Our waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq forced our enemy to engage our army with poor results for them. If the U.S. does leave Afghanistan, the losses our enemy has been enduring in terms of manpower lost and weapons and material lost will fall dramatically. Our enemy is already adapting to the lower level of attrition as a result of the lower amount of combat that is taking place within Iraq. With an U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan the war will accelerate even faster once our enemy re-deploys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
