Streets Without Joy -- Pt. II
Part I of Streets is what Ranger would explore if giving an introduction to an Army audience. Pt. II is what can never be said concerning State-Sponsored Terrorism.
The military/government courses on terrorism try to keep it simple, and only explore the Bad Guys. Let's throw caution to the wind and discuss the Good Guys.
Of course failed states can breed terror -- but so what? That threat is manageable. Established rogue nations such as Syria, Iran, North Korea present the greater threat.
Russia and China area exactly what they are. Unlike America, they do not purport to base their policies on democratic principles. Their policies reflect ancient, deep-rooted national security concerns, and are based upon these historical facts.
How does the democratic beacon, America, comport itself in this global arena? Presently we have invasion armies occupying two nations. The president and Vice President, with the concurrence of Congress, have given secret instructions to the CIA on the torture of prisoners captured and detained in this Phony War on Terror (PWOT©).
Further, the CIA runs secret prisons worthy of the KGB. Renditions, detainees, indefinite imprisonment, suspension of habeus corpus, warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps ad nauseum are the order of the day. This adds up incontrovertibly to a rogue state. That would be us.
To add insult to injury, in the run-up to the upcoming presidential elections, hawk-alternatives Clinton and Obama are talking tough about using nuclear bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is sobering dialog. Clinton said the nuclear option should always be on the table for the U.S. president. What a psychedelic moment for flower-child Hillary and her military-loathing partners.
But she is no more to be censured than than her opportunistic opponents on the Republican side. They are all scooping out rhetoric from the same slop bucket.
The question remains: How can the U.S. oppose the use and development of WMD without being absolutely hypocritical when the option is always a presidential playing card? It's o.k. for us, but not for them, because. . . We have leaders of such Solomon-like wisdom -- say, GWB -- who know how to employ them wisely? Wise nuclear deployment? GWB, Solomon?
What is the yardstick by which one measures an "evil empire"?
posted by rangeragainstwar at 4:19 PM
8 Comments:
in phu bai provence i participated in the "secure hamlets" program for nearly eight months. it gave me a grunt's eye view of counter insurgency. the first thing we did right there was that a hefty number of our team members spoke vietnamese. nearly half. and those of us who did were out there, every day, talking with "our" folks. we talked about what the concrete issues of life in that region in that time were, things like safety, clean water, being able to plant, grow, harvest crops and then benefit from the results of that harvest without being ripped off and abused by one or the other factions (the local ARVN commander was a crook of first water). we also talked about dreams and hopes. we taught kids to read. we passed out medicines. we lived with, worked with and came to admire the folks we were assigned to defend. they came to trust us and showed a hesitant shy trust in that just maybe, we were telling the truth and not just setting them up for a bigger kill.
it ended badly. my team and i ended up in a standoff with the local ARVNs, who were accompanied by U.S. Special Forces advisors. i conferred with the elltee of the advisors and told him on no uncertain terms that my team was not backing down, that our ville was not going to be ripped off that day without a bloody fight and that he could stand with us or against us, either way it would not have made a difference to me.
the cooler heads of the advisors prevailed that day. they convinced the ARVN to stand down.
we were removed from that assignment two days later. the village was looted, first by the ARVN and then again by the "shadow government" of the NVA.
i have carried the shame of being made a liar by my superiors since.
m.b.,
As I have previously stated, there are two Marine Corps: one that wears stars, and the other that wears stripes and serves where the rubber meets the road. The twain shall never meet.
As an afterthought: Do you ever wonder what happened to the VN? I do.
Ranger would like to say some defensive words about the 5th Sp. Forces Gp. We were not advisers to the ARVN; this was a MACV function.
Sp. Forces belonged to USARV, and we were maneuver assets, MACV were on the administrative side of MACV command, and operated as advisers to the ARVN. I sincerely hope that this was an anomaly.
Usually SF is trained to a fine point in IDAD (Internal Defense and Development). Actually, we started the CAP programs. Gen. Walt stole the idea from us. But we'll share with the Marines; God knows they need it.
In SF we used to say, it's hard to remember that you're there to drain the swamp, when you're up to your ass in alligators.
Isn't it strange how the same alligators can chomp on your ass whether in the jungle or the desert?
by special forces i meant the green beret dudes. they were wearing SOG patches and had the flash on their berets. that was one of the real problems, there were too many differing programs which often ended up at crossed purposes. some of the truly visionary officers who gave a fuck about their mission and the people we were supposed to be there helping like john paul vann or who dug in right beside their troops like hackworth saw their careers go down in flames because of beaurocratic snipers in the rear. i never held any animosity for the advisors. without their intervention i doubt that the local warlord would have been able to back down to a squid CPO and not have his subordinates smell blood and make a run on him. i'm certain that any complaints which were made came from the ARVN command. when the SOG lads realized that they were facing other americans they just wanted to find out WTF? and figure a way for us all to get out of there alive.
i've been thinking about that for a while now. especially when i read about the perceived conflict and animosity there appears to be between petreaus and al-malikhi. in my experience, petreaus is soon to be toast unless he knuckles under. bush has invested far too much in the sham of an iraqi government to do anything but back al-malikhi should push come to shove.
i won't pity petreaus when the hammer comes down, but i will know how the poor SOB feels.
m.b,
Do you remember Diem?
As for crossed purposes--this is why the concept of the country team was so important, and as such, the ambassador should be making the important calls, and not the generals.
Therefore, Petraeus is off-base; he's the military side of the equation, incorreclty adressing political issues.
Your homework assignment is to read "The Country Team."
I met John Paul Vann in 1970. Did you read, "A Bright Shiny Lie," by Sheehan, I think. As for Hackworth, Ranger does not buy his image. He was run out of the Army b/c he was caught black-marketing in Saigon. not b/c of his political stance. My source is a ret. CID Col., Brigham Schular, who was the primary investigator in the case.
My old first Sgt., Lowell Jergens, can tell you stories about Hackworth that I'm sure you wouldn't like.
Ranger was with B53 5th Gp., which was a SOG ops. 38 unit. So I am familiar with what you're talking about.
i too got to meet vann. i have read "a bright shining lie." i figured there was a lot more to hackworth than met the eye. i only met him after he had made his move to austrailia. i would not be surprised in the slightest that there was shady practice happening with him. he was far too easy and familiar with backstage drug abuse to be totally in the clear about anything. i co-ordinated with hack's lads a few times and they never once let me down. that's usually a pretty good yardstick for judging a field commander. but, it's not a valid stand alone. there was a lot of wink wink nudge nudge corruption all over that place. but, if under investigation hackworth was judged to be out of line, he was most likely out of line. he rolled decent joints and was a fine drinking companion in brisbane.
i will take you up on your reading assignment.
i also agree that the ambassador should be the final authority to groups trying to win hearts and minds. it only makes sense. of course, sense can often be in very short supply once one leaves the field and heads further up the chain of command.
m.b.,
Just remember: your reading assignment is a work of fiction. However, it was also general SF reading.
There will be a quiz afterwards. And since you were a Marine, I'll use little words (we in SF were heavily trained in the use of such.) And you know that on this site, I try to keep it Ranger simple; I can do naught else.
Not commenting on the exchange between you two (ranger and minstrel boy), but rather on the essay.
How indeed do we get away with that sort of hypocrisy?
You know when you have a scratchy throat and you're in a formal setting where it's quiet -- a classroom, a service of some type, a speech -- and you just have that annoying tickle in the throat that really would be helped with a big hacking cough?
Well, when I think about how we get away with being so danged hypocritical on the global stage, I get one of those annoying tickles in the back of my throat, and I'm pretty sure it's caused by the sheer number of US military bases and personnel stationed all around this great planet of ours.
Of course, not having served in any of the branches of the armed forces, I'm not speaking from experience. I'm just talking about how the data strikes me. And how it might strike someone else in one of those foreign countries where our military has installed a base (or bases) and the equipment and people needed to run that base.
Just as a matter of curiosity. I'm sure the two concepts aren't even close to being connected, causally speaking.
Recently a couple of Tu-95's flew near Guam and the Russian air minister made chortling sounds about it, "just like the old days!" kinda sounds. So I went and looked up some things about the Tu-95. It's a contemporary of the B-52, it's the world's only turboprop strategic bomber, it's probably the world's loudest aircraft ever built, and -- this was an interesting fact -- the Tu-95 has never dropped a bomb in anger.
Never.
The B-52 has bombed at least half a dozen countries that I know of. And I'm not talking a couple of bombs. I'm talking about tons and tons and tons of bombs. I'm talking bombing raids so intense that the poor saps under the bombs think the world is coming to an end. The Tu-95 has been in service actually for a few more years than the B-52 yet has bombed... no... zero... countries.
Your question is valid. Who was the evil empire, again?
-BT
Post a Comment
<< Home