Eyes of the Beholder
When you enter a home, greet the family, 'Peace.'
If your greeting is received,
then it is a good place to stay.
But if it's not received, take it back and get out.
--Luke 10:1-1
May we show our support for our boys in Iraq?
May U.S. and they a-kill every single terrorist.
May you destroy their country so that
for the next thousand years not even a single lizard
will survive in their desert [cheers]
--Borat (2006)
_________________
Re. the quote from Luke: end of lesson.
Ranger was mulling over attempts to remake the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the image of the beholder
Long War is so hopelessly endless, and "Global War on Terror" is such a blatant lie. The Office of Management and Budget is now using, "Overseas Contingency Operation". This is not your father's war -- it is a kinder and gentler war.
In logic, contingency is the status of facts that are not logically necessarily true or false. A wonderful netherworld to occupy if one does not wish or cannot commit to the absolute imperative of necessity. Contingency is opposed to necessity. It might be, but maybe not. It is the realm of the waffler.
A contingency is something that can happen, but that generally is not anticipated. Who could have anticipated such a thing, right? [Which is, of course, a crock.]
War is not a marketing strategy or a business enterprise managed by Madison Avenue. Whatever we call them, they are based in Counterinsurgency (COIN) policy, an outmoded, impractical and unsustainable model.
At root, COIN is an attempt by a superior power to impose regime change and bend Third World nations to the dictates of the imposer. This flawed formula is not a winner because it is schizophrenic. According to Galula, et al, protection of the population is primary. The fiction is that they are separate from those you intend to decimate.
Ranger was mulling over attempts to remake the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the image of the beholder
Long War is so hopelessly endless, and "Global War on Terror" is such a blatant lie. The Office of Management and Budget is now using, "Overseas Contingency Operation". This is not your father's war -- it is a kinder and gentler war.
In logic, contingency is the status of facts that are not logically necessarily true or false. A wonderful netherworld to occupy if one does not wish or cannot commit to the absolute imperative of necessity. Contingency is opposed to necessity. It might be, but maybe not. It is the realm of the waffler.
A contingency is something that can happen, but that generally is not anticipated. Who could have anticipated such a thing, right? [Which is, of course, a crock.]
War is not a marketing strategy or a business enterprise managed by Madison Avenue. Whatever we call them, they are based in Counterinsurgency (COIN) policy, an outmoded, impractical and unsustainable model.
At root, COIN is an attempt by a superior power to impose regime change and bend Third World nations to the dictates of the imposer. This flawed formula is not a winner because it is schizophrenic. According to Galula, et al, protection of the population is primary. The fiction is that they are separate from those you intend to decimate.
If you are not welcome, you are not welcome. Fighting a COIN makes no sense, unless the object is complete domination of a foreign country. In this contingency, the invader should gain a sizable pay-off to justify the effort.
Sending U.S. troops to fight pitched battles so that uneducated, uninformed, ignorant (no, we're not talking Newark) tribal members can cast a vote for their tribal candidate is as stupid as believing that these same peasants will grow to love the U.S. and democracy. Even if they did show us some love -- so what?
The cost is unjustified. Are we so insecure and disingenuous that we even pretend to care? If we care in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not China? If a nuclear-armed Iran weirds us out, why not a nuclear China?
The U.S. justifies the unjustifiable and calls it COIN. Even writes a few manuals on it (with lots of cribbing), to show just how institutionalized it is. Some General even wrote a thesis on it. More proof of its indefatigable nature.
Whatever name we hang on the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), there is one question that has primacy. It is the same question for the bailouts and stimulus packages:
What are we buying with these expenditures, and are the purchases necessary?
Labels: COIN, COIN is a losing strategy, counterintelligence, nukes, phony war on terror, PWOT
posted by Lisa at 7:20 PM
4 Comments:
Don't you remember?
1) Some Saudi Arabians destroyed the WTC
2) Saudi Arabians are brown
3) We can't mess with Saudi Arabia, but since Iraqis and Afghanis are also brown, we took it out on them
I mean, it's all so simple, once you brush off all the bullshit about American flag lapel pins, "defending freedom", making sacrifices, etc, etc, etc.
And, in addition to being simple, it's depressing.
When people make decisions based on emotions, bad information, or incorrect assumptions, disaster results, and I think that's exactly what has happened. And keeps happening... Every day.
Grant,
I truly do like your faulty syllogism. I hear Glenn Beck has need of copywriters :)
Like you, I cannot stand the emotionalism all 'round. Big decisions should be made from a dispassionate stance.
The Chinese would never nuke us, we owe them to much money. They might break our leg or whatever loan sharks do.
We are addicted to the drug oil, and Iran is one of bigger dealers. It probably not in their best interests to nuke us either.
Now, Israel, that is another issue. I can see them and the Iranians in nuclear gun fight for no better reason than the Clantons & Earps, Sharks & Jets, Blood & Crips etc.
Roger,
In the "Same as it ever was" category, yeah, I'm sure most of the middle East would like to have or have had a go at Israel.
But isn't it interesting that we say, "Israel, that is another issue." Surely of all the ME nations, Israel is the one NOT to threaten its neighbors with nuclear annihilation.
Oy, Israel -- such a problem you are.
Post a Comment
<< Home