Give War A Chance

Why not?  John Lennon said “Give Peace A Chance,” but it seems as a species that we are congenitally incapable of that.  On the other side of the equation, every time in the past that we tried war it has resulted in horrific death and destruction with nothing good to show for it.

Oh, sure, the U.S. whipped Great Britain in our Revolutionary War and we got to have Taxation WITH Representation (as opposed to representation withOUT taxation), but how is that working for youse guys right now?  Happy with the way the Big Boys and Girls are running things for you up in D.C. (or in your individual State Houses for that matter?).  You are?  Poor slob . . .

And, Hey, The Allies whipped the Axis during WWII too.  That put an end to Hitler and whoever the hell the bad guy was in Japan (It was Mussolini in Italy but he doesn’t count being a pussy and all).  So how did THAT little enterprise suit ya?  We introduced a whole new kind of weapon when Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in radioactive smoke. And now it’s ALL THE RAGE!  Everyone’s got to have one or two or three, even that Jiffy Pop Hairdo Nut-Case in North Korea.  Now THERE’S someone we want with a sweaty finger on a button, eh?  The shakedown from that war gave us an enslaved Eastern Europe (Yalta, my ass), something called a “Cold War” that didn’t come to an end until 35 years later, and a showdown off the Florida Keys that almost screwed the pooch.

Let’s not discuss Vietnam shall we?  I want to get to sleep tonight.

HEY!

Here’s my point . . . .

Instead of being always at war and crying for peace, why not just give up completely on the idea of ever having anything resembling peace.  Don’t stop having war.  It’s the only thing of the two at which we seem to be any good.  We can be sooooo much better if we quit holding ourselves back.  Let’s let ‘er rip!

The first thing we need to do is close down the U.N. building in New York.  It would make excellent housing for the city’s homeless population.

Next we all choose up sides.  It will be US against THEM.  Two teams with the captains being the guys with the most nuclear weapons and tactical and strategic resources.  All the little guys can choose whose side they want to be on.  That’s only fair seeing as how it’s their land and people that are going to be completely obliterated.  Oh, the Big Boys are going to be in a World of Hurt as well when the long range nukes start flying.  But for land operations we can always count on the little guys to provide us a field for our fun and games.

There will be no more of this cease fire and truce and treaty B.S. either.  It’ going to be a fight until only one guy is left standing.

So it’s going to be fire and brimstone and radiation and lands made desolate for millenia and people living in bunkers and genetic deformities and generally the kind of horror that we have only previewed so far.  We can’t have peace, folks.  It’s been proven.  But we can have war neverending which has also been proven.  So, let’s do it up right and stop fooling around.  Let’s PROVE what we already know.  War is the ony thing we can be truly good at if we just stop farting around and really do it up.

Hey, you do know I hope that when the dust has settled that China is going to be the Last Man Standing. You know that, right?

c.e.s.

Delivering Democracy from 30,000ft

Reaping the rewards of democracy

The Obama administration and its allies in Afghanistan continue to escalate George Bush’s good fight in the name of bringing democracy to the people of Afghanistan. Obviously in this case greater democracy promotion translates into record numbers of bombs dropped last month;

“Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan during April, Air Forces Central figures show.

In the past month, warplanes released 438 bombs, the most ever.

April also marked the fourth consecutive month that the number of bombs dropped rose, after a decline starting last July.

The munitions were released during 2,110 close-air support sorties.

The actual number of airstrikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don’t include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don’t include strafing runs or launches of small missiles.”

George must be proud.

Cry Havoc

From Julius Caesar

ANTONY:
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter’d with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

Shakespeare

“Ate” is not a typo.  Ate by Caesar’s side is the goddess of Ruin and Strife.  and she is “come hot from hell.”

“Infants quarter’d?”  All pity choked with custom of fell deeds?”

Doesn’t sound like such a new thing to me, being a “custom” and all . . .

Today we call it “collateral damage.”  Makes it sound a little nicer, thinks thou?

c.e.s.

The Tet Offensive

Series Contents;

1. The Tet Offensive
   
2. Tet: Preparing to Attack
3. Tet: Allied Defenses
4. Tet: Battle for Saigon

Part I

The Tet Offensive was a military campaign conducted by the Vietcong (opposition guerrilla army in South Vietnam) and the Army of North Vietnam beginning on the 30^th of January and ending on the 23^rd of September 1968. It was aimed at the Army of South Vietnam and the United States armed forces in the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). The purpose was to strike military and civilian control centers in South Vietnam and create a popular uprising in that country that would culminate in the fall of Saigon (capital of S. Vietnam).

It is called “Tet” because Tet is the official New Year’s Day in Vietnam. North and South Vietnam announced by radio that in honor of the most important holiday in Vietnam that there would be a two-day cease-fire. However, in the early morning hours of January 30^th (New Year’s Day) the Viet Cong began a wave of attacks in the I and II Corps Tactical Zones. At first the attacks did not cause widespread alarm or lead to extraordinary allied defensive measures. The next morning however more than 80,000 Viet Cong troops struck more than 100 towns and cities, including 36 of 44 provincial capitals, five of six autonomous cities, 72 of 245 district towns and the national capital (Saigon) itself. It was the largest military operation by either side up to that point in the war.

The South Vietnamese Army and the allied forces were surprised and stunned, but most of the attacks were successfully repulsed. The communists suffered massive causalities. There were two exceptions; the old imperial capital of Hue and the U.S. combat base at Khe Sanh where fighting lasted for more than one month and two months respectively.

President Lyndon Johnson

It was a military disaster for the Vietcong but a public relations victory. The American public and even top administration officials had come to believe that because of previous defeats that the communists were unable to launch an offensive anything close to the scope of Tet. Most Western historians concluded that Tet ended in June, but it in fact lasted through two more phases. The second began in early May and lasted until the end of the month. The third began on August 17^th and lasted until September 23^rd.

In the summer of the preceding year, General William Westmoreland (commander Military Assistance Command, Vietnam: MACV ) believed that who was winning the war could be calculated by determining the replacement rate of enemy troops. To do this he took the total number of enemy combatants in-country and subtracted the number of those eliminated. Then he added back to that the number of enemy combatants replacing those eliminated and if the first calculation was greater than the second then the conclusion was that the S Vietnamese and U.S. forces were winning.

The problem was that MACV estimates and CIA estimates differed on how many combatants were in country to begin with. The difference was 130,000. MACV estimated 300,000. The CIA estimated 430,000.

General William Westmoreland

The military routinely gave estimates of enemy strength to the press and the MACV figures that were being used. If the CIA figures were reported then that would seriously undermine the impression that was being made to the American public. The military was trying to show that the U.S. was winning the war. Giving a figure of 130,000 more than previously reported not only would make enemy troop strength and determination look stronger but also would undercut the credibility of MACV.

MACV tried to force a compromise on the CIA by insisting that they not count V.C. militias but the CIA said that was ridiculous because militias accounted for inflicting more than 50% of U.S. causalities. A final solution to the problem occurred when a report was issued using the MACV figures with an addendum at the end of the report stating CIA objections to the figures. Interagency rivalry and bureaucratic bullshit was responsible for misleading the public on the advisability of continuing the war which resulted in untold loss of additional life among American and South Vietnamese young men.

It was a decline of public support during the latter half of ’67 that upset the administration of Lyndon Johnson. 45% of the Americans polled felt that the U.S. had made a mistake in sending troops to S.E. Asia. It wasn’t because people felt that the cause was not a worthy one. It was because people were beginning to believe that it was unwinnable. Their taxes were also going up. Another poll (55%) stated that Americans wanted a stricter policy—“let’s win or get out.” So instead of concentrating on winning the war the administration concentrated on changing the public’s perception of the war. The goal was to convince the public that we were not losing but had, rather, reached a stalemate and conversely that the administration’s policies were succeeding.

The administration began pushing statistics that indicated progress; “kill ratios,” “body counts,” and “village pacification.” Vice President Hubert Humphrey went on the Today Show and stated “We are on the offensive. Territory is being gained.” And, “We are making steady progress.” President Johnson summoned General Westmoreland and U.S. Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker to Washington who claimed that the U.S. policy was creating successes in the war.

Westmoreland gave an address at the National Press Club stating that the Vietcong was “unable to mount a major offensive . . . I am absolutely certain that whereas in 1965 the enemy was winning, today he is certainly losing . . . We have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view.”

(to be continued)

Mr. Obama

From the New York Times

President Obama announced through “White House Officials” that he will authorize sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.  This comes on top of the 36,000 currently there.  Bringing the total to 53,000-an increase of more than 50%.

Mr. Obama is choosing a middle ground . . ..   M r. Obama said that deteriorating security in Afghanistan demands “urgent attention and swift action” to address a problem that “has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.”  The decision does carries some political risks for Mr. Obama, whose election was interpreted by many Americans as a mandate to bring troops home from Iraq. But Mr. Obama has now announced additional American troops are headed to Afghanistan before he has withdrawn any troops from Iraq.  Mr. Obama will still have to make a decision on the additional troops that are part of Gen. David D. McKiernan’s standing request. Defense officials say that Mr. Obama cannot satisfy the full request from Gen. McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, without withdrawing a substantial number of forces from Iraq.  Mr. Obama is expected to press America’s European allies at the summit for additional troops for Afghanistan, along with more development help.

This was no surprise was it?  At least I hope not and especially those of us who followed the campaign.  Candidate Obama said repeatedly while he was campaigning that it was a definite possibility (if not probably) that this was coming.  So, I am not surprised.

But answer me this;

Why are they still addressing President Obama as Mr. Obama?  He’s President now, right?  They haven’t done this before for other sitting presidents, have they?  Seriously, I’m not completely sure.  Let me know if this is a standard practice for the Times.  If this is not new, then it’s the first time I noticed it.  And I think I would have before now . . .

But STILL, even if this is their regular practice, I don’t like it!  The guy is president now, right?  He deserves the respect of addressing him with his unique title.  After all, he’s sending 17,000 of our nation’s youth directly into harm’s way.  ONLY a “President” can do that.  The article makes him sound like the Manager of a Lowe’s Home Improvement Store!

SHEESH!  What do YOU think?

ANARCHY!

OH MY GOD!

ONLY TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE SITE GOES DOWN!

HIDE YOUR CHILDREN AND STOCKPILE FOOD AND WEAPONS!

ANARCHY IS ABOUT TO ENSUE!

AIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Israel and Her Neighbors

 

See Also;

• Israel Strikes Gaza,
• Israel Strikes Gaza: UPDATE, and
• Gaza and Israel

 

The New York Times on Saturday, January 10, 2009 reported from Cairo that inside a mosque, a government appointed preacher, Sheik Eid Abdel Hamid Youssef addressed the congregants,

Muslim brothers, God has inflicted the Muslim nation with a people whom God has become angry at and whom he cursed so he made monkeys and pigs out of them.  They killed prophets and messengers and sowed corruption on Earth.

 

Does this sound like someone we should allow to continue to exist—killers of prophets and messengers, monkeys and pigs who sow corruption on the Earth?  Not if you believe the preacher anyway.  And who ya gonna believe if not your preacher?

 

The war in Gaza is now past its 14^th day.  Uniformed and plainclothes officers stood outside backed by water cannons to stop the group inside the mosque from boiling over outside in protest against the war in Gaza.

 

The governments of Arab nations in West Asia are losing legitimacy.  Not all to be sure, but at least those of Egypt and Jordan.  Why?  Muslim majority populated and ruled nations are suffering a loss of legitimacy if they backed Israel against the actions of Hamas in the Strip.  Egypt and Jordan (as well as the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank) all condemned the actions of rocket launches into southern Israel conducted by Hamas fighters in Gaza and in violation of the now quite dead ceasefire.

 

Egypt and Israel have a peace treaty.  Remember Sadat, Begin, and Carter at Camp David?  Egypt has refused to allow transfer of goods or people through its border with the Strip.  Regardless, tunnels in the desert connecting Egypt and the Strip have and do exist that have allowed the illegal transfer of goods and people—most remarkable of which are rockets that were and are being fired into Israel.

 

Hamas is sworn and dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  Obviously they can’t accomplish this alone.  Militarily they are puny as puny can be compared to the massively (and nuclear) equipped Israel.  So why in hell would they provoke such a fight?

 

Why, indeed.  If they can anger the populace of states who supported Israel in the face of illegal and cowardly attacks, then they can lessen the legitimacy of those states—prompting them to do something to restore that legitimacy.  It will damage and destroy relations not only with those supporting states but also of all the other states around the world.

 

If Israel can be made to look like barbarous, child-butchering monsters then support for the defense of the poor helpless victims of Israel’s brutality will increase.  They hardly need the political support of Syria and Iran.  They already have it.  And as for material support, it is already well known that is coming from at least Iran, which is positioning itself to be the de facto super power of the region.

 

Whatever aid might be coming from Syria et. al. is unknown by this author.  But it would be no surprise to learn of it.

 

Now we all know the reputation of Israel.  Israel takes no shit from anyone.  Israel is a tiny country surrounded by a hostile Arab nation.  There have been wars there in the past contesting the right of Israel to exist and, you can betcha, there will be wars there for a long long time to come.

 

The problem of Hamas’ strategy is that it is transparent.  We can see what they are doing.  We know that they are committed to the destruction of Israel and that they are vastly ill-equipped to do this themselves.  Rationally, we know that a way to achieving their goal is to get the support of governments who support Israel.  We know that one way to do this is by attacking their legitimacy through the popular uprising of the people in those states.  At the same time, we know that their attempts to paint Israel as baby killers can have at least minimal impact on those states that never supported Hamas in the first place.

 

They do this by inciting popular sentiment and emotion.  Hoping to turn worldwide public sentiment in their favor they disseminate images of children killed in the attacks by Israel.  And it works.  I have seen the photographs  (but my sentiments have not changed.)  They are truly atrocious.  And they are excellent tools of propaganda.

 

I have heard how horrible Israel is from more than a few westerners.  Were these people prone to pro-Hamas/anti-Israeli sentiments beforehand?  Most likely.  Will these images and reports of barbarisms influence those who previously held anti-Hamas/pro-Israeli sentiments.  Most likely not.

 

But they may shift the opinions of the who previously  held no opinion of the actions.  Show me a dead baby and you will get my attention immediately.  Forget trying to convert me by logic or reason (especially if your position is untenable in the first place).  Grab me by the heartstrings.

 

And this is what is happening in Eqypt, et. al.  Hamas is angering the populations of those countries and inspiring public/popular revolt.  The Muslim population was already, prima facie, in support of Hamas from the beginning.  How will those governments react?  How and when will this all end?  Hell if I know, but it ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime, or my children’s, or their children’s, et. cetera. . . . well, it could . . . but I don’t want to be around for that, because it sure ain’t gonna be pretty.

 

1. The New York Times
2. The CIA World Factbook
3. My Head and Heart

Gaza and Israel

And Israel and Gaza.  Here we go again.  Once again my source is The New York Times.

No photos this time.  Use your imagination.

Israel is allowing foreigners to come out of Gaza.  Why?  Well it’s guessed that it’s in preparation for a ground assault.  That’s my guess what they want everyone (especially Hamas) to think.  Maybe they will and maybe they won’t, but it puts it to a new level anyway.

Seven days now.  That’s how long this has been going on.

You can see my posts Israel Strikes Gaza and Israel Strikes Gaza: UPDATE for my news and commentary on what’s been happening up to now.

The Times article said,

At the United Nations, officials moved beyond calls for an immediate cease-fire, saying that an international monitoring mechanism needed to be established in Gaza to prevent future outbreaks of violence. “We will need a monitoring mechanism if we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past,” said Mr. Serry, the Middle East envoy.

That’s what I suggested in my first article on the subject.  Maybe Mr. Serry caught my blog.  I’m ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille.  Or maybe it was just common sense.

The Times article ended,

At a news briefing at the White House on Friday, the deputy press secretary, Gordon D. Johndroe, said Israel had a right to defend itself from the rocket attacks out of Gaza. But he added that Israel also needed to “avoid unnecessary civilian casualties,” and to continue the flow into Gaza of humanitarian goods

I truly admire someone who can sincerely talk out of both sides of his mouth and his asshole simultaneously.