Update from the Heartland
No.330
31.3.08 – 6.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.330
31.3.08 – 6.4.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
This week’s Update comes a little late. I am in Painesville, Ohio, this week and will probably be here most of next week, working on a component test with a supplier, to solve a field problem and determine a fix – success, just slow going. Please pardon the delay in the distribution of this week’s Update.
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, the Supremes declined to review the DC Circuit's ruling in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [USDC DC no. 06-3105 (2006); no. 06mj00231)] -- a case I commented on last August [295]. I shall not bore you with a rehash, but just to say I am deeply disappointed that we shall not hear from the Supremes. Thus, Representative William Jennings Jefferson of Louisiana AKA ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson [233, 240, 258, & sub] will successfully deny some of the FBI's evidence for the government's prosecution in his corruption trial, which I hope is coming soon. Jefferson was re-elected in 2006, despite the corruption charges and will probably be re-elected again this year. I disagreed with the DC Circuit, and now, I disagree with the Supreme Court.
-- Zimbabwean president and dictator Robert Gabriel Mugabe finally failed to rig an election sufficiently to win. [85, 159] He single-handedly destroyed a country, taking a successful, productive nation (formerly Rhodesia) to one of the poorest, most regressive countries on the planet. If he does not face the justice he so despicably deserves, I hope he just disappears into a hole somewhere. I expect Zimbabwe will finally see a better day. Well, not so fast! Before I could publish this week's Update, Mugabe has begun his typical aggressive, oppressive crackdown on the opposition and foreign journalists. He shall not go quietly into the night.
-- We seem to be getting more Libyans into al-Qaeda leadership positions. First, we dealt with Abu Farraj al-Libbi [178], and then Abu Laith al-Libi [321]. Now, the New York Times reports that an obscure, 30-something, militant, Libyan cleric by the name of Abu Yahya al-Libi, is now considered to be a top al-Qaeda strategist. I suppose when Colonel Moammar decided to relinquish his role at a state-sponsor of terrorism, the radical Muslims in that North African country had to find another outlet for their rabid ideology and/or violent nature. To me, the news is simple; we have another target.
-- An English friend, colleague and contributor sent this update regarding the RMS Cutty Sark restoration:
"Cutty Sark: refit for purpose"
Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 12:01am BST; 05/04/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/04/05/sm_cuttysark05.xml&page=1
As you will recall, the Cutty Sark was damaged by fire during the early morning hours of 21.May.2007 [285]. We still do not know the fire's root cause and may never know, although I remain suspicious of disgusting vandalism. As noted in the Telegraph article, the curators face the typical challenge between reverence for history and the commercialization of history to sustain the facility.
On 1.February.2008, United States District Court Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton issued her decision in the case of Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association vs. Kempthorne [USDC AZ no. 06-CV-1744-PHX-SRB (2008)], enabling the Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, to declare 8.6 million (that’s million with an ‘M’) acres of Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the “endangered” Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix Occidentalis Lucida). The laws in question are the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [PL 93-205] and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [PL 91-190], both signed into law by President Nixon. Susan acknowledged that the law allows for aggressive designation with imprecise criteria to release, i.e., easy in, difficult to remove. More significantly, she observed that the law only provided for two categories of habitat -- occupied and unoccupied; and yet, she saw fit to expand the law to include occupation "likely to occur," which sides with the government and opens the law to interpretation by the Executive Branch as it sees fit – power she believes Congress granted to the Fish & Wildlife Service. Several key elements of this decision reflect upon all of us. A Federal judge did what judges do -- interpreted the law based on her opinion of the legislation’s intent. What is missing from Susan's reasoning is the essence of the Ninth Amendment -- Congress did not provide for "likely to occur," therefore that subtlety should remain with the People. Laws and judicial pronouncements like the subject documents do not affect the vast majority of us directly, yet, I urge you to see beyond the obvious to realize the implications of such broad judicial interpretations. For the record, I am an advocate for endangered species like the Mexican Spotted Owl. Like most of us, I marvel at the majesty of seeing wild creatures in its native habitat, and I want the Mexican Spotted Owl to survive and thrive. However, like virtually every confrontation or conflict, the key to stability rests in finding balance. Radical environmentalists would make the entire planet an 'occupied' habitat, while raging capitalists would claim these little critters are not important to human progress. Let it suffice to say, Susan Bolton's sanction of the Federal government's wielding of a powerful bludgeon throws western states seriously out of balance. I hope the Arizona Cattle Growers appeal the Kempthorne decision and adopt the broader constitutional argument; Bolton went too far. Lastly, I ask, does anyone sense the odd, distant thread that Richard Milhous Nixon signed into law so many of these bludgeon instruments that dramatically expanded the reach, intrusiveness and power of the Federal government? Republicans like to point an accusatory finger at Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal legislation and actions, and yet it was Nixon's versions that place the Federal government in our living rooms and bedrooms. Are we destined for a new revolution?
A friend and I discussed education. I said, "Learning to learn properly teaches us to learn forever," to which he translated into Spanish -- "El proceso de aprender de aprender con correción nos enseña a aprender para siempre." Perhaps this exchange might be useful to others.
Comments and contributions from Update no.329:
“The Medellin thing really sticks in my craw. From what I remember in doing research for a novel a while ago, the U.S. did not sign up to join the Int'l Criminal Court. As far as I'm concerned, they, like any other U.N. body, have no authority to tell us how to run our country. For Bush to say we should abide by their ruling is another example of what perplexes me about this guy. He has no problem saying we'll go after terrorists wherever they are, and if that honks off some foreign governments, too bad. But everything else, from border security to this, his attitude seems to be let's placate these foreign governments so they'll think we're nice people. Somebody please clone Teddy Roosevelt and put him in the Oval Office.”
Another comment:
“It still amazes me how people of this country, or anywhere in the world for that matter, so quickly forget the truly important history lessons; including "we were under fire as soon as we touched down in Bosnia." I wish we had a balderdash meter...Bill or Hillary....you make the call! Don't let us become complacent....I find your tenacity for history and the research that goes along with it quite refreshing.”
A contribution:
“Interesting Op-Ed by Mr. Holbrooke (I have a book or two of his).
“Fighting America's longest war”
by Richard Holbrooke
San Diego Union-Tribune
Published: April 2, 2008
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080402/news_lz1e2holbrook.html
“My opinion is after 9/11, had Bush & GWB-43's cabinet/administration focused more specifically on Afghanistan (Al-Qaida), versus getting distracted/diverted/depleted (and perhaps some claim ‘drained’) by Iraq, we'd have a much different situation and I believe better footing for a focused war on terrorists (and any state sponsors) who target America. Many say immediately after 9/11 there was much unity and support for America, only to see that prestige factor capital decline after our entrance into the Iraq campaign/theater. I guess some might call it ‘likeability’ but one must be respected too, even more important than liked in strategic geopolitics (or the grand chessboard). Unfortunately, the likeability and respect seem to me to have declined towards our country, much over mission creep and now not having the clear vision of what our goals are in Iraq (or to have lost them in the fog of war). There is as much negative-synergy as energetic positive synergy, and I'm afraid our costs of supporting the Iraqi operations, tends to pollute the accomplishments of Afghanistan.
“Then again, I am glad I'm not in position to make the decisions nor have to read the daily NSC briefings of threats.”
My reply:
I see the War on Islamic Fascism in a different light. There is no question we had to go into Afghanistan, given the al-Qaeda haven created by the Taliban. I have long argued, even before 9/11 that Iraq had to be eliminated as a threat. I have been very critical of the Clinton administration's handling of the Iraq situation. Nonetheless, I remain convinced Iraq was a proper target for a host of reasons. That said, I have been staunchly critical of the Bush administration, not for the objectives they chose, but for the failure to mobilize the Nation for war and to provide the necessary resources to fight these battles in the greater war. War on the cheap is rarely successful and generally gets a lot of good men killed. So, my criticism of George W. is not where he chose to fight, but how he chose to fight. I agree with Admiral Mullen; we are grossly understaffed to wage war successfully.
Ambassador Holbrook's article is encouraging and yet disappointing. From my knowledge & perspective, I agree with his assessment. He closed with, “But even as the United States and its NATO allies move deeper into the cauldron, questions must be asked: When, and how, will the international community hand responsibility for Afghanistan back to its government? Will short-term success create a long-term trap for the United States and its allies, as the war becomes the longest in American history?”
First, I'm not particularly concerned about the duration of these battles. I have long held the opinion that the War on Islamic Fascism is a generational or more likely a multi-generational war. Second, the Cold War took 45 years to win; we always overlook that little factoid. Third, we are not fighting traditional field battles; we are fighting a counter-insurgency engagement, which means special operations and political operatives. Unfortunately, the President has failed in one of his primary responsibilities in wartime -- coalescing the American will and mobilizing the necessary resources to fight and win the war. So, we are relegated to stumbling along, sacrificing our youth and treasure, and stimulating the naysayers to distract us from the objective.
The answers to Richard's questions:
1. When the Afghan & Iraqi governments are strong enough to defend themselves. The same task took several decades in Germany, Italy and Japan. There is no reason we should think the task less difficult in this war or battles; in fact, quite the opposite for many reasons.
2. There is always that risk, especially if we take our eyes off the ball. The voices against fighting World War II and the subsequent occupation of the Axis countries did not regain their voices for several decades. We will not be so lucky as we see in the current political Silly Season. To me, the risk is not in Afghanistan; the real risk is here . . . “right here in River City.”
. . . to which came this follow-up:
“Let me add some of my replies below, .
“I know there is much controversy over how Saddam might have been a threat, and to what degree. You may have read or been exposed to data I did not see or understand.
“Certainly if we could build a model Middle East country, that would be nice for the Iraqis. Is it worth the cost? Are we to be into nation-building? Did Iraq fit the just-war-theory? In terms of eliminating a threat of terrorism, unless I am wrong, I don't think even CIA or think tanks could establish a connection between Iraq/Saddam and Al-Qaeda/Osama/911. If Saddam made three grave errors (and he paid with life), I think it was to launch on Kuwait, then when Gulf War I began, sending scuds into Saudi Arabia and Israel. When Saddam initially came into power, he quickly began war with Iran. Overall, I can completely understand why most Iraqis from Muslim to Chaldean, hated Saddam. “I agree. When a nation must go to war, it should have the collective will of its people. Even Queen Elizabeth I knew this.
“From an aviator to aviator perspective, I would say we did not have the destination selected, had not plugged in all the intermediate coordinates for our path, have not made the appropriate course corrections, and then only used 70% for takeoff power. We burned precious fuel floating around trying to determine the destination. It is incumbent on the leader(s) to not only have accomplished the outlined tasks, but have the capacity/ability/skill to articulate the mission to all involved whether directly or indirectly.
“Where is Churchill when you need him?
“Japan is a good example of a nation that eventually has been greatly rewarded through rebuilding, after their failed follies of WWII and imperial quest.
“And therein lies a big problem, I've not been able to determine from this administration, what the goals are. I think I saw CNN using a slogan the other day (not that CNN is my source): ‘Changing Rationalizations for War.’
“You have also made some good points that we Americans are too impatient, we are a sound byte and video bit society expecting changes from one news cycle to the next, as those very news cycles get compressed.
“I just picked up two soft back books: The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action, both books by Thomas P.M. Barnett. I have been impressed reading excerpts, and saw him on C-SPAN a year ago during a presentation, and was impressed by his vision and alignment with my thoughts on why Bush-II & administration have not properly conducted the wars we are in. You might go check out Mr. Barnett @:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
“He writes a blog in there too, I need to start checking them out. His books in hardcover are actually remaindered by many bookstores at discount, so you may be able to get them on-line for $5 (+/-) a copy.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I wish I had possessed a laptop and kept notes of events during the last 50 years, but alas such is not the case. I wish I could quote to you the evidence against Saddam. The best I can do is: 16.March.1988, Saddam Hussein attacked his citizens in Halabja, Iraq, with a vile combination of chemical agents, including the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX, and the blister-agent mustard gas (from WWI infamy), killing 5,000+ Iraqis. All the agents were produced in Iraq by Iraqis.
I was a Marine on the dark side when Saddam attacked Iran on 22.August.1980; while I had access, I saw plenty of raw intelligence regarding Saddam's tactics. I was still on the dark side when the Israelis struck the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak, on 7.June.1981, and I produced the briefing related to the facility and strike for the Commanding General, III Marine Amphibious Force (CinC Marine Forces, WestPac). Let it suffice to say, the Israelis were justified in their preemptive strike. There is a huge body of evidence on Saddam's various programs regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD); unfortunately, I cannot quote all that information. How much more evidence do we need? The threat was the clandestine supply of those weapons and/or technology to al-Qaeda operatives – directly or indirectly – not a cooperative attack involving Iraq.
We are not into nation-building. However, when we break it; we fix it . . . as it has been 65 years. No, Iraq does not fit the 'just-war-theory;' the assumption of a quick action was foolish in the extreme. I have not tried to make a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda; the administration foolishly tried to simplify the threat from Saddam with al-Qaeda, but that does not mean the threat was not present. Unfortunately for George W. & his passel of clowns, American citizens are far better informed and engaged than previous generations. Like war on the cheap, justification on the simplistic is destined to fail. George has made more than a few mistakes as Commander-in-Chief.
Well said, on your analogy. Spot on!
Churchill, indeed!
Being a good wartime president or effective commander-in-chief takes much more than just pulling the trigger. George was decisive and courageous in pulling the trigger, but he failed to learn the lessons of the First Gulf War from his daddy. They had 3 times the number of troops for little ol' Kuwait. Unfortunately, all this crowd drank Rumsfeld's Kool-Aid in taking on Iraq with so few troops and so little ability to control the ground, along with a very naïve view of the aftermath. Regardless, the trigger was pulled; we need to finish the job.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
This week’s Update comes a little late. I am in Painesville, Ohio, this week and will probably be here most of next week, working on a component test with a supplier, to solve a field problem and determine a fix – success, just slow going. Please pardon the delay in the distribution of this week’s Update.
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, the Supremes declined to review the DC Circuit's ruling in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [USDC DC no. 06-3105 (2006); no. 06mj00231)] -- a case I commented on last August [295]. I shall not bore you with a rehash, but just to say I am deeply disappointed that we shall not hear from the Supremes. Thus, Representative William Jennings Jefferson of Louisiana AKA ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson [233, 240, 258, & sub] will successfully deny some of the FBI's evidence for the government's prosecution in his corruption trial, which I hope is coming soon. Jefferson was re-elected in 2006, despite the corruption charges and will probably be re-elected again this year. I disagreed with the DC Circuit, and now, I disagree with the Supreme Court.
-- Zimbabwean president and dictator Robert Gabriel Mugabe finally failed to rig an election sufficiently to win. [85, 159] He single-handedly destroyed a country, taking a successful, productive nation (formerly Rhodesia) to one of the poorest, most regressive countries on the planet. If he does not face the justice he so despicably deserves, I hope he just disappears into a hole somewhere. I expect Zimbabwe will finally see a better day. Well, not so fast! Before I could publish this week's Update, Mugabe has begun his typical aggressive, oppressive crackdown on the opposition and foreign journalists. He shall not go quietly into the night.
-- We seem to be getting more Libyans into al-Qaeda leadership positions. First, we dealt with Abu Farraj al-Libbi [178], and then Abu Laith al-Libi [321]. Now, the New York Times reports that an obscure, 30-something, militant, Libyan cleric by the name of Abu Yahya al-Libi, is now considered to be a top al-Qaeda strategist. I suppose when Colonel Moammar decided to relinquish his role at a state-sponsor of terrorism, the radical Muslims in that North African country had to find another outlet for their rabid ideology and/or violent nature. To me, the news is simple; we have another target.
-- An English friend, colleague and contributor sent this update regarding the RMS Cutty Sark restoration:
"Cutty Sark: refit for purpose"
Telegraph [of London]
Last Updated: 12:01am BST; 05/04/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/04/05/sm_cuttysark05.xml&page=1
As you will recall, the Cutty Sark was damaged by fire during the early morning hours of 21.May.2007 [285]. We still do not know the fire's root cause and may never know, although I remain suspicious of disgusting vandalism. As noted in the Telegraph article, the curators face the typical challenge between reverence for history and the commercialization of history to sustain the facility.
On 1.February.2008, United States District Court Judge Susan Ritchie Bolton issued her decision in the case of Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association vs. Kempthorne [USDC AZ no. 06-CV-1744-PHX-SRB (2008)], enabling the Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, to declare 8.6 million (that’s million with an ‘M’) acres of Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the “endangered” Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix Occidentalis Lucida). The laws in question are the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [PL 93-205] and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [PL 91-190], both signed into law by President Nixon. Susan acknowledged that the law allows for aggressive designation with imprecise criteria to release, i.e., easy in, difficult to remove. More significantly, she observed that the law only provided for two categories of habitat -- occupied and unoccupied; and yet, she saw fit to expand the law to include occupation "likely to occur," which sides with the government and opens the law to interpretation by the Executive Branch as it sees fit – power she believes Congress granted to the Fish & Wildlife Service. Several key elements of this decision reflect upon all of us. A Federal judge did what judges do -- interpreted the law based on her opinion of the legislation’s intent. What is missing from Susan's reasoning is the essence of the Ninth Amendment -- Congress did not provide for "likely to occur," therefore that subtlety should remain with the People. Laws and judicial pronouncements like the subject documents do not affect the vast majority of us directly, yet, I urge you to see beyond the obvious to realize the implications of such broad judicial interpretations. For the record, I am an advocate for endangered species like the Mexican Spotted Owl. Like most of us, I marvel at the majesty of seeing wild creatures in its native habitat, and I want the Mexican Spotted Owl to survive and thrive. However, like virtually every confrontation or conflict, the key to stability rests in finding balance. Radical environmentalists would make the entire planet an 'occupied' habitat, while raging capitalists would claim these little critters are not important to human progress. Let it suffice to say, Susan Bolton's sanction of the Federal government's wielding of a powerful bludgeon throws western states seriously out of balance. I hope the Arizona Cattle Growers appeal the Kempthorne decision and adopt the broader constitutional argument; Bolton went too far. Lastly, I ask, does anyone sense the odd, distant thread that Richard Milhous Nixon signed into law so many of these bludgeon instruments that dramatically expanded the reach, intrusiveness and power of the Federal government? Republicans like to point an accusatory finger at Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal legislation and actions, and yet it was Nixon's versions that place the Federal government in our living rooms and bedrooms. Are we destined for a new revolution?
A friend and I discussed education. I said, "Learning to learn properly teaches us to learn forever," to which he translated into Spanish -- "El proceso de aprender de aprender con correción nos enseña a aprender para siempre." Perhaps this exchange might be useful to others.
Comments and contributions from Update no.329:
“The Medellin thing really sticks in my craw. From what I remember in doing research for a novel a while ago, the U.S. did not sign up to join the Int'l Criminal Court. As far as I'm concerned, they, like any other U.N. body, have no authority to tell us how to run our country. For Bush to say we should abide by their ruling is another example of what perplexes me about this guy. He has no problem saying we'll go after terrorists wherever they are, and if that honks off some foreign governments, too bad. But everything else, from border security to this, his attitude seems to be let's placate these foreign governments so they'll think we're nice people. Somebody please clone Teddy Roosevelt and put him in the Oval Office.”
Another comment:
“It still amazes me how people of this country, or anywhere in the world for that matter, so quickly forget the truly important history lessons; including "we were under fire as soon as we touched down in Bosnia." I wish we had a balderdash meter...Bill or Hillary....you make the call! Don't let us become complacent....I find your tenacity for history and the research that goes along with it quite refreshing.”
A contribution:
“Interesting Op-Ed by Mr. Holbrooke (I have a book or two of his).
“Fighting America's longest war”
by Richard Holbrooke
San Diego Union-Tribune
Published: April 2, 2008
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080402/news_lz1e2holbrook.html
“My opinion is after 9/11, had Bush & GWB-43's cabinet/administration focused more specifically on Afghanistan (Al-Qaida), versus getting distracted/diverted/depleted (and perhaps some claim ‘drained’) by Iraq, we'd have a much different situation and I believe better footing for a focused war on terrorists (and any state sponsors) who target America. Many say immediately after 9/11 there was much unity and support for America, only to see that prestige factor capital decline after our entrance into the Iraq campaign/theater. I guess some might call it ‘likeability’ but one must be respected too, even more important than liked in strategic geopolitics (or the grand chessboard). Unfortunately, the likeability and respect seem to me to have declined towards our country, much over mission creep and now not having the clear vision of what our goals are in Iraq (or to have lost them in the fog of war). There is as much negative-synergy as energetic positive synergy, and I'm afraid our costs of supporting the Iraqi operations, tends to pollute the accomplishments of Afghanistan.
“Then again, I am glad I'm not in position to make the decisions nor have to read the daily NSC briefings of threats.”
My reply:
I see the War on Islamic Fascism in a different light. There is no question we had to go into Afghanistan, given the al-Qaeda haven created by the Taliban. I have long argued, even before 9/11 that Iraq had to be eliminated as a threat. I have been very critical of the Clinton administration's handling of the Iraq situation. Nonetheless, I remain convinced Iraq was a proper target for a host of reasons. That said, I have been staunchly critical of the Bush administration, not for the objectives they chose, but for the failure to mobilize the Nation for war and to provide the necessary resources to fight these battles in the greater war. War on the cheap is rarely successful and generally gets a lot of good men killed. So, my criticism of George W. is not where he chose to fight, but how he chose to fight. I agree with Admiral Mullen; we are grossly understaffed to wage war successfully.
Ambassador Holbrook's article is encouraging and yet disappointing. From my knowledge & perspective, I agree with his assessment. He closed with, “But even as the United States and its NATO allies move deeper into the cauldron, questions must be asked: When, and how, will the international community hand responsibility for Afghanistan back to its government? Will short-term success create a long-term trap for the United States and its allies, as the war becomes the longest in American history?”
First, I'm not particularly concerned about the duration of these battles. I have long held the opinion that the War on Islamic Fascism is a generational or more likely a multi-generational war. Second, the Cold War took 45 years to win; we always overlook that little factoid. Third, we are not fighting traditional field battles; we are fighting a counter-insurgency engagement, which means special operations and political operatives. Unfortunately, the President has failed in one of his primary responsibilities in wartime -- coalescing the American will and mobilizing the necessary resources to fight and win the war. So, we are relegated to stumbling along, sacrificing our youth and treasure, and stimulating the naysayers to distract us from the objective.
The answers to Richard's questions:
1. When the Afghan & Iraqi governments are strong enough to defend themselves. The same task took several decades in Germany, Italy and Japan. There is no reason we should think the task less difficult in this war or battles; in fact, quite the opposite for many reasons.
2. There is always that risk, especially if we take our eyes off the ball. The voices against fighting World War II and the subsequent occupation of the Axis countries did not regain their voices for several decades. We will not be so lucky as we see in the current political Silly Season. To me, the risk is not in Afghanistan; the real risk is here . . . “right here in River City.”
. . . to which came this follow-up:
“Let me add some of my replies below, .
“I know there is much controversy over how Saddam might have been a threat, and to what degree. You may have read or been exposed to data I did not see or understand.
“Certainly if we could build a model Middle East country, that would be nice for the Iraqis. Is it worth the cost? Are we to be into nation-building? Did Iraq fit the just-war-theory? In terms of eliminating a threat of terrorism, unless I am wrong, I don't think even CIA or think tanks could establish a connection between Iraq/Saddam and Al-Qaeda/Osama/911. If Saddam made three grave errors (and he paid with life), I think it was to launch on Kuwait, then when Gulf War I began, sending scuds into Saudi Arabia and Israel. When Saddam initially came into power, he quickly began war with Iran. Overall, I can completely understand why most Iraqis from Muslim to Chaldean, hated Saddam. “I agree. When a nation must go to war, it should have the collective will of its people. Even Queen Elizabeth I knew this.
“From an aviator to aviator perspective, I would say we did not have the destination selected, had not plugged in all the intermediate coordinates for our path, have not made the appropriate course corrections, and then only used 70% for takeoff power. We burned precious fuel floating around trying to determine the destination. It is incumbent on the leader(s) to not only have accomplished the outlined tasks, but have the capacity/ability/skill to articulate the mission to all involved whether directly or indirectly.
“Where is Churchill when you need him?
“Japan is a good example of a nation that eventually has been greatly rewarded through rebuilding, after their failed follies of WWII and imperial quest.
“And therein lies a big problem, I've not been able to determine from this administration, what the goals are. I think I saw CNN using a slogan the other day (not that CNN is my source): ‘Changing Rationalizations for War.’
“You have also made some good points that we Americans are too impatient, we are a sound byte and video bit society expecting changes from one news cycle to the next, as those very news cycles get compressed.
“I just picked up two soft back books: The Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint for Action, both books by Thomas P.M. Barnett. I have been impressed reading excerpts, and saw him on C-SPAN a year ago during a presentation, and was impressed by his vision and alignment with my thoughts on why Bush-II & administration have not properly conducted the wars we are in. You might go check out Mr. Barnett @:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/
“He writes a blog in there too, I need to start checking them out. His books in hardcover are actually remaindered by many bookstores at discount, so you may be able to get them on-line for $5 (+/-) a copy.”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I wish I had possessed a laptop and kept notes of events during the last 50 years, but alas such is not the case. I wish I could quote to you the evidence against Saddam. The best I can do is: 16.March.1988, Saddam Hussein attacked his citizens in Halabja, Iraq, with a vile combination of chemical agents, including the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX, and the blister-agent mustard gas (from WWI infamy), killing 5,000+ Iraqis. All the agents were produced in Iraq by Iraqis.
I was a Marine on the dark side when Saddam attacked Iran on 22.August.1980; while I had access, I saw plenty of raw intelligence regarding Saddam's tactics. I was still on the dark side when the Israelis struck the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak, on 7.June.1981, and I produced the briefing related to the facility and strike for the Commanding General, III Marine Amphibious Force (CinC Marine Forces, WestPac). Let it suffice to say, the Israelis were justified in their preemptive strike. There is a huge body of evidence on Saddam's various programs regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD); unfortunately, I cannot quote all that information. How much more evidence do we need? The threat was the clandestine supply of those weapons and/or technology to al-Qaeda operatives – directly or indirectly – not a cooperative attack involving Iraq.
We are not into nation-building. However, when we break it; we fix it . . . as it has been 65 years. No, Iraq does not fit the 'just-war-theory;' the assumption of a quick action was foolish in the extreme. I have not tried to make a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda; the administration foolishly tried to simplify the threat from Saddam with al-Qaeda, but that does not mean the threat was not present. Unfortunately for George W. & his passel of clowns, American citizens are far better informed and engaged than previous generations. Like war on the cheap, justification on the simplistic is destined to fail. George has made more than a few mistakes as Commander-in-Chief.
Well said, on your analogy. Spot on!
Churchill, indeed!
Being a good wartime president or effective commander-in-chief takes much more than just pulling the trigger. George was decisive and courageous in pulling the trigger, but he failed to learn the lessons of the First Gulf War from his daddy. They had 3 times the number of troops for little ol' Kuwait. Unfortunately, all this crowd drank Rumsfeld's Kool-Aid in taking on Iraq with so few troops and so little ability to control the ground, along with a very naïve view of the aftermath. Regardless, the trigger was pulled; we need to finish the job.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment