Any Road
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there
--English proverb
The trouble with our age is that it is all signposts and no destination
--The War Cry
I believe... that security declines as security machinery expands
--E.B. White
The human race's prospects of survival were considerably better when we were defenseless against tigers than they are today when we have become defenseless against ourselves
--Arnold Toynbee
____________
Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times was as good an accompaniment as any for a bit about a society gone mad, turning gears for gears' sake.
Just to get a little perspective: We can confiscate vats of little shampoo and water bottles at the airports, yet we can't deal with a crazed student with a gun. A student who had given years of prodigious evidence as to his violent instability, to boot.
Just to get a little perspective: We can confiscate vats of little shampoo and water bottles at the airports, yet we can't deal with a crazed student with a gun. A student who had given years of prodigious evidence as to his violent instability, to boot.
Just think--if the students had only had their deadly ballistic fingernail clippers which were confiscated on their last trip through the airport on their Spring break, they might have had a fighting chance.
What a farce and a boondoggle is Homeland security. We don't even begin to understand the concept of security because we can't define the threat. My guess is, the threat clearly doesn't go to church on Sunday. Oops, except in Cho's case.
--by Lisa
Labels: Homeland security failure, west virginia school shooting
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:03 PM
9 Comments:
I went into town the other day to drop off some honey a couple of small shops that are kind enough to carry it for me. One of 'em is a combo ancient drug store, notion shop, book store. The lady that runs it loaned me a new book to read that was an eye-opener on this idea of not being able to define the threat. The book is by a man named John Robb, "Brave New War" is the book...apparently he's the real deal, ex-GI, SEAL type is what he claims. Anyway, he's obviously a smart guy. He talks a lot about how the threat is changing fast enough to make our responses pretty much too old-fashioned, slow and...well...dumb to do any good. He talks about what he calls "targeted system disruptions" and has some pretty scary predictions for where things are going if we keep doing what we're doing without thinking about it some. He also gives a laundry list of reasons we're headed straight for failure in Eye-Rack. Some are kinda time worn, others were new (to me anyway). The whole thing kinda put events in a new light. Less than 200 pages. You won't agree with it all, I don't think, but it makes you think. In my case, that happens rarely enough that a funny fryin' sound comes out my ears.
..anon
anon,
Does this book have enough pictures in it so a Ranger can understand it? Since it was written by a SEAL, it's probable!
Next time I'm in the bookstore, I'll try and take a look at it. I'm not familiar with it at this point. I'm guessing it's written from an operational viewpoint vs. a strategic planning p.o.v., which is generally my interest.
However, I am currently composing a comment to be posted soon on my reading of Robert's Ridge by MacPherson. Generally, I try and stay theoretical, and heretical.
Sorry, no pictures. The guy's a boney fied ringknocker so you can betcha it's long on theory. :-) Most of the words were short enough for even an old eleven bravo rat like me, though, so you won't even break a sweat. :-)
..anon
Anon,
Thanks for the tip on the book. Always happy to get some interesting info.
Ranger,
Watching CNN earlier - I saw Iraq correspondents Kyra Phillips and Michael Weir being interviewed. I don't know what their reporting was like around the time of the invasion, but since I've noticed them (the last 6 months/1 yr.) they have been straight forward and have stepped right around the sugar-coated spin from the White House.
When asked about the withdrawal of U.S. troops - they both went apesh#t. Saying it would escalate chaos and that Iran would take over, AQ would take over, etc.
Given that (at least as I understand it) the Iraq/Iran War was in part started by Iran meddling in the affairs of the then new leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, their assessments gave me pause. As far as I know, neither carries a serious political bias. But I could be wrong.
I understand that they were reacting to an extreme version of the argument. That we intend to just step away completely instead of redeploying.
But how do we step away from Iraq AND suppress Al Qeada in Iraq (not because we are afraid they will follow us here - but since some of them have decided to come there, deal with the ones that have decided to come there) AND also deal with Iran's likely appetite for some Iraqi pie?
Like I said earlier, I guess this goes under the category of "redeployment." But how, precisely do we redeploy and accomplish the above?
KW,
We'll get Jim's answer tomorrow.
From my end, I know he is interested in the practical application of force and the law. If al Qaeda members are found quilty of hatching a plot on Western interests, at that point they become a target for law enforcement.
The world is saturated with terrorist elements. We cannot kill them all, nor do we have cause to. [Look at Israel, who is in the unenviable position of having to broker with terrorist elements as they have gained positions in the adversary's government.]
As for redeployment of U.S. elements in place, I'll respectfully bow out on that one,
Lisa
anon,
I'm sure will be gratified that making it through the book is possible for him (!)
He's back tomorrow,
Lisa
KW
I saw Michael Weir on CNN tonight and he repeated again what you've said. I agree with your evaluation of him too. He responded to a question about withdrawal dates effecting the Iraqi government saying that those in power and those with the most to gain would welcome the withdrawal of American troops.
As far as Al Qaeda goes, Juan Cole had an interesting article in the Nation titled How To Get Out of Iraq
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070423/cole
Juan Cole is a professor of Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and monitors daily all the Arabic news outlets.
He said:
Turkey, Jordan and Iran are not going to put up with an Al Qaeda stronghold on their borders; nor would Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis. Most Sunni Iraqis are relatively secular, and there are only an estimated 1,000 foreign jihadis in Iraq, who would be forced to return home if the Americans left.
Bush's ineptitude has made a regional proxy war a real possibility, ..........
The key to preventing an intensified civil war is US withdrawal from the equation so as to force the parties to an accommodation.
The insurgency in Iraq began with our occupation. I doubt it will stop till we leave.
Thank you, Trip Wire, for the Juan Cole link and for your insight as well.
I'll check out the link tomorrow.
Thanks again.
Trip wire, KW, et. al,
Jim here:
I consider all of these concerns to be manufactured, non-existent constructs that are fear-mongering efforts by this administration.
The U.S. bows out of the nuclear non-proliferation pact with Russia, we are placing missiles in Poland, yet somehow we're concerned w/ nuclear weapons that Iran doesn't actually possess. Address the actual threat of Russian nuclear weapons, not the potential speculated threats.
There are other realistic threats that we should be addressing more urgent than the puny al Qaeda elements.
I'm more interested in U.S. corporation's appetites for Iraqi pie than I am about Iranian intentions; that is a greater threat to peace in the area.
Post a Comment
<< Home