Stockholm Syndrome

Fate doesn't always make the right men kings
--The Prisoner of Zenda (1937)

There are none more abusive to others
than they that lie most openly about it to themselves
--Seneca

I don't want to think about that old war anymore
It's driving me up the wall with bad insanity
I need a new war
--High on War, Henry Rollins
_____________

The U.S. seems to be operating as a collective victim of the Stockholm Syndrome, in thrall to President George Bush and his under-functioning government.

The odd transference has been effected by the government in collusion with the press, whereby the country perceived the events of 9-11 as a collective hostage-taking of the nation. The resultant fearful immobility and sense of helplessness that the hostages (US) feel is now rendered unto the government as protector/Hostage Taker [HT].

The Syndrome Stockholm syndrome, named after a hostage-taking situation following a bank robbery in that city in 1973, is defined by a "psychological response . . . in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which they have been placed (Wikipedia.)" It is also called trauma-bonding or bonding-to-the perpetrator.

Because of the hostage's sympathy for and identity with the HT, they have an "inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment." They develop a dependence on and a loyalty to the perpetrator[s] of their captivity. Due to the extreme danger and unpredictability of their situation, the hostages also often fear the actions of government response teams more than they do the HT.

This was the case with the unfortunate detainee Jose Padilla who began to distrust and fear his court-appointed attorney, instead thinking that George W. Bush was his friend. Delusion of the highest order. Do you think your government has your better interests at heart?

January 20th is coming, but captives do not reconstitute so quickly. Change is not effected by a simple change in mise-en-scène.

Who will deprogram us? We've been mainlining the Kool-Aid for a while now.

Gordian Knot

There is no longer any doubt as to whether
the current administration has committed war crimes.
The only question that remains to be answered
is whether those who ordered the use of torture
will be held to account.
--Lt. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba,
on his investigation of Abu Ghriab abuses
_________________

Honorable man, General Taguba. He should be welcomed back into service post-haste by the Obama administration.

The new administration should hold torturers legally liable for their actions, but the prosecutorial model should be that of the Nuremberg Trials.

So far in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) the only convictions for prisoner abuse have been at the lowest levels. Let those culpable not come from the NCO ranks, but from 4-Stars and above.

Eric Holder, Obama's pick for Attorney General, said several months ago, “Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution.We owe the American people a reckoning.”(Obama should prosecute Bush officials who designed torture policy)

However, the issue of torture, while very serious, is a sideshow to the most egregious offense, which is the illegal aggressive war initiated by President Bush. Preemptive invasions are wars of aggression, and therefore violate international law.

Unfortunately, there will be no trials for our current crop of criminals --neither the torturers nor the war makers -- for to do so would be political suicide for Obama, further fracturing the U.S. along partisan lines. If Obama is to effect a unification of the nation, trials will never happen, and if they do not happen, then Obama is guilty of being an accessory after the fact.

This is Obama's Gordian knot.

Dangerous Liaisons

Which way did he go?
Which way did he go?
--Deputy Dawg
______________

In a rush to judgment, the U.S. military is putting on the heat in an effort to bring charges against 5,000 "dangerous" detainees before the new Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) goes into effect (U.S. Builds Cases on Dangerous Detainees.) If they have not been charged by that time, they will probably be released by the Iraqi government in a process that resembles that once followed in the U.S.

What is their charge? Is it resisting an invasion of their homeland? Taking up arms against foreign aggressors? The U.S. has released a record 17,500 detainees this year, nearly double the number released last year. The 5,000 are described as "dangerous detainees," but no description was given as to what constitutes "dangerous".

17,500 added to the 15,800 detainees remaining elsewhere in American custody equals 33,300 Iraqis held in U.S. prisons without being charged or adjudicated guilty by a court of law. Is this how the U.S. spells DEMOCRACY?

Imprisoning people sans charges is what Saddam Hussein used to do. How does U.S. policy differ? "Our focus is to go back and get detention orders on these 5,000," said Brig. Gen. David Quantock, commander of detainee operations in Iraq. What is a "detention order"? It sounds like something used to keep one 30 minutes after school for bad behavior.

Ranger always thought that one could only be detained while awaiting trial or any legal or administrative actions. Imprisonment in Western civilization mandates a court trial. There is no "preventive arrest" concept.

One cannot presume a conviction, thereby vindicating a vague detention. Why has this imperative been suspended in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©)?

"Most files contain the necessary statements and other evidence to convict, said Marine Maj. Neal Fisher, a military spokesman in Iraq, but Iraqi judges may release some prisoners for lack of evidence.

"'We're realistic,' Fisher said."

Well, if there is evidence to convict, why no conviction? Just because you say you're realistic does not make it so.

How many of these detainees would still go imprisoned without charges if there were no SOFA?

Grand Guignol, Islamism-Style

--Denial, Nik Scott, Australia

Adaptation is a profound process.
Means you figure out how to thrive in the world.
--Adaptation (2002)
___________

Sticky Bombs? What are these?

First they are trying to sell me terrorism as a New World Paradigm Shift, now the old Soap Dish becomes a Sticky Bomb? Ranger first heard the term in the film, Saving Ryan's Privates. But anyone knows that one-pound blocks of C-4 feature one side with a removable strip covering a sticky surface. Isn't this a "sticky bomb"?

The point is not nomenclature when talking about the employment of explosives. What is significant is the nature of the target and the nature of the bomber. The NYT coverage says "militants" use the sticky bombs, but the article itself uses the terms "militant," "insurgent," and "terrorist" interchangeably (Militants Turn to Small Bombs in Iraq Attacks.)

Ranger understands the writer's casting a large net in the hopes of encompassing all the bases. The U.S. military and government fail the rhetorical precision test, so they report on what they are provided. The military should know better.

Militants, terrorists and insurgents in all probability use different targeting objectives. All will attack soft targets as a matter of choice, but insurgents and militants will be more discriminate in target selection. These groups hope to gain support and increased membership as a result of their activities.

In contrast, terrorists are less likely to discriminate. The more grotesque the attack, the better for the terrorist. Terrorists aim for a government overreaction, as their goal reaches beyond the target.

Back to soap dishes, those wonderful little tools for spreading death, destruction and mayhem. Ranger is encouraged by their use as this is an indicator that the groups are degraded into smaller mini-attacks which are more irritant than militant. This indicates a breakdown in the groups' internal structure.

Bombers and bomb makers are the stars of any given group, so when everyone becomes "bomb capable," this is a good thing for the authorities. It is much better than 2,000 pounds being detonated in a marketplace.

This also indicates that surveillance and intel capabilities of the groups are shrinking. In effect, everything becomes a target of opportunity. At this point, the actions have degraded into "street theatre," incapable of significant direction or results.

“Iraqi and United States officials acknowledge that 'sticky bombs' have been an effective means of spreading terror among Iraqi urban populations but note that, paradoxically, the bombs are also a sign that terrorists are finding it harder to move freely.”

Adaptation is occurring. After years of war, this is an embarrassing yet unavoidable fact.

Pardon Me

Opponent, Pavel Constantin

Excuse me! I feel good tonight, because, uh. . .
well, I've finally got a goal in life, and that's. . .
that's what pleases me, is to be able to have a goal,
and this is why I'm so happy
--SNL, Steve Martin (1978)

Some times are happy, some not happy. . .
But the idea of being able to serve a nation you love is --
has been joyful. In other words,
my spirits have never been down
--George W. Bush (2008)
______________

Recent talk of presidential pardons centers around the actors who brought you the wildly distracting Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) (Preemptive Pardons.)

The speculation is that Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Justice (DoJ) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and their contractors may receive a blanket pardon for committing torture, in violation of the Geneva Conventions (In Defense of Pardons.) The intention is to alleviate their chances of being tried in the U.S. for War Crimes.

CIA/U.S. policy of secret prison sites is probably still operational, but the concept of preventive incarceration is as felonious and ineffectual as preemptive invasions. Both policies are weak-minded and counter-productive, yet We the People countenance these illegalities.

As a follow on to yesterday's Terrorists are People, Too, consider the cases of sad sack detainee Jose Padilla and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh.

No Mr. Klar here, just a couple of zhlubs trying to make it on the other side of capitalism. Unlike convicted killer Klar, neither Lindh nor Padilla can be proven to have ever killed an American, yet they both received proportionally heavier sentences than did Klar.

Let us hope that the entire DoJ approach to terror criminals will be reevaluated in this new administration. In this spirit, why not pardon Jose Padilla and John Walker Lindh? Both men should be considered for parole.

Of course, this will never happen. We need poster boys.

And goodies like pardons don't trickle down far into shallow pockets.

Where is the Love?

Thus Ants, who for a Grain employ their Cares,
Think all the Business of the Earth is theirs.
Thus Honey-combs seem Palaces to Bees,
And Mites imagine all the World a Cheese
--Alexander Pope

These last few weeks of holding on
The days are dull, the nights are long
Guess it's better to say
Goodbye to you
--Goodbye to You, Patty Smyth
______________

It couldn't last forever, and the flames were destined to burn down into a sooty ash. The love affair is over.

The New & Improved security agreement between the People's Republic of Iraq (PRI) and George Bush signals the loss of legal immunity for contractors, as expected (Iraq Pact Forces Contractors to Confront Work Without Immunity.) Their previous "legal immunity" was larceny rammed through on a wing and a prayer.

Since by all definitions of statehood the PRI is a nation, then it logically follows that everyone in that country, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense and all contractors are subject to the laws of PRI. Nations have sovereignty. Period.

Hasn't the American taxpayer spent trillions on this Fantasyland ride already? If our money was buying democracy for Iraq, then let us accept the entire construction. After all, if we don't believe it, who will? Pronouncements by J. P. Bremer and Crew to the contrary, international law remains unchanged.

The U.S., like a huckster hawking snake oil, has no qualms preaching democracy and the Rule of Law abroad in this Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), while its shore is ever-receding here at home. The new security document reveals the non-democratic impositions of the U.S.-led occupation.

With contractors falling under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts, it could become harder for them to recruit new workers and could drive up costs as insurance rates and wages rise to offset the risk of landing in a local jail.

This should not even be a point of contention. If the contractors were to comport themselves in a democratic manner they would not run afoul of Iraqi law. Alas: Contractors can no longer play Cowboys and Indians (just when the boys were having so much fun.) The Indians are tired of the arrogance.

Doug Brooks, the head of the International Peace Operations Association, a Washington industry group for security and logistics contractors, said member companies support accountability in Iraq but have concerns about the fairness of the country's legal system.

Hear, Hear! There are concerns about the fairness of the country's legal system. Uhhh. . .and since when has the concept of legality infringed upon the PWOT? The PWOT is packed with illegal U.S. actions, from its justification on down. Contractors are not imbued with a sense of concern for the Iraqi civilians wounded and killed while under their watch.

Does anybody expect fairness from a legal system that has seen its country treated like a big military playground? Before Iraq can be criticized, U.S. actions to this point need to be examined. Ranger wonders why the Iraqis don't just kick us out on our asses. What good can come from further U.S. presence?

Mr. Maliki -- get some balls and go for it! At least this public eviction would show the world that one person in this entire PWOT is acting rationally.

Build It, They Will Come

You know I just got paid
I got my hot rod wheels
So if you wanna find out how it feels
Call me - Pennsylvania 6-5000
--Pennsyviania 6-5000, Glenn Miller

You were my pills, you were my thrills
You were my hope baby, you were my smoke
You dropped a bomb on me, hey baby
You dropped a bomb on me, baby
--You Dropped a Bomb on Me,
The Gap Band

I have known many adventures in my time. . .
but war is not really an adventure at all, it is only a substitute. . .
War is a disease. Like Typhus.
--Pilote de Guerre, Antoine de St. Exupery
_____________

Analogies can be helpful things. But one must be careful when dealing with the intricacies of modern warfare to select the appropriate model. Ranger believes a model from his childhood fits hand-in-glove with modern counterinsurgency in the Middle East.

After reading U.S. News & World's reports this week on the Taliban's "New Superbombs" -- even bigger drums filled with bigger hunks o' explosives, it became clear that Looney Tunes' Roadrunner and his nemesis Wile E. Coyote provide the perfect analogy. The Taliban is the Roadrunner, usually outrunning the wily Coyote, who is the U.S. in our current scenario.

The 55-gallon-drum is such a useful item. During our Florida A & M University Homecoming weekends, a revered tradition has the drums lining the sidewalks, where inside braises the best barbecue this side of the Apalachicola. Rednecks find joy burning every example of household toss off of in same such. Every ammo dump is rife with such flotsam.

Against such brute realities, Coyote is ever reading, plotting, and purchasing new destructive technology from the ever-ready ACME Tool Company. For sure, Coyote possesses more weaponry, and the theme song does say that "if he catches you, you're through." However, Coyote usually becomes ensnared in his own well-laid plans. His problem is that he does not understand his nemesis.

Roadrunner sees the holes in the road, and moves them, or chooses to take another path. He is not predictable, and Coyote thrives on understanding the psychology of his enemy, who alas is a shape-shifter. Despite Coyote's increasingly violent methodology, he never gets his bird.

Just as roads figure largely in the Roadrunner cartoon, so it is in Afghanistan. The U.S. military is road-bound as usual, with the added problem that Service and Service Support are no longer protected in the Corps and Division rear areas.

Since there is no Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) or Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA), all of our vehicles, to include combat vehicles, are subject to attack at any time and place. Running unsecured roads is military folly. Fighting dirty little wars for no quantifiable objective is another level of insanity. Fighting unconventional threats with conventional means is neither cost-effective nor sound.

"Roadside bombs that once weighed 10 to 20 pounds have morphed into multigallon drums packed with 200 to 500 pounds of explosives, which insurgents roll into culverts with wheelbarrows (Taliban's New Super-Bombs Threaten U.S. Troops, Even in Pricey MRAPs)."

So U.S./NATO forces are running the roads in multi-million dollar vehicles and the Taliban are countering this threat with explosives hauled out of the fields in the precision delivery modality of -- wheelbarrows. When Sheikh Omar escaped U.S. forces, he did so on a Vespa motor scooter, while multimillion dollar drones with multimillion dollar bombs searched for him. Which side of the battle will you place your money on the win table?

"The enhanced bombs have in some cases proved effective in destroying the U.S. military's expensive new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles—the product of a multibillion dollar investment by the Pentagon that features a V-shaped hull to absorb and disperse the impact of roadside bombs.

"The vehicles were not built, however, to withstand 200-pounds worth of explosives. "They've flipped MRAPs 15 feet in the air sometimes," says one U.S. officer in Afghanistan. "And they break them in half." U.S. troops inside the overturned vehicles have been crushed and seriously injured by falling equipment."

The U.S. answer to the problem is Coyote's: Do something, even if it is wrong. Spend your way out of the problem, for ACME has a new handy-dandy tool just right for you. But the MRAP's are folly, as they are not combat vehicles and they are not fighting platforms. What purpose do they serve?

The MRAP is like the 55-gal-drum is to the barbecue: a containment device for being shaked-and-baked. They are classic bomb magnets. They are slow, unmanueverable and most importantly, MRAPs serve no discernible military purpose.

The new bombs, which U.S. military officials say began cropping up in June, are part of an insurgent effort, they add, to disrupt commerce, create chaos, and strike at the heart of government efforts to bring progress to strategic provinces like Ghazni.

This editorializing attempts to overlay meaning on the project, but it is false. There is no progress and the government is as useless as the MRAP's are to address the Taliban insurgency. There is no realistic government in Afghanistan; it is a puppet regime bolstered totally by external military power. This is not a formula for success.

Even if the US/NATO forces control the roads, they will never control the countryside. This means that the government is a sham. Controlling the cities does not counterbalance the popular insurgency, and it IS popular or it would have been defeated in seven years.

The construction-grade explosives are trucked in from Quetta, a Taliban stronghold in neighboring Pakistan, according to U.S. intelligence officials. But the material is manufactured elsewhere, leading officials to believe that insurgents are bypassing border crossings in eastern Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have a greater presence, to bring them in through southern provinces.

Other possible sources of explosives are the Afghani Army and Police Forces sympathetic and loyal to the Taliban. The U.S. supply system is a probably source of these stolen explosives.

Insurgents and guerrillas will flow around U.S. blocking positions just like the Mississippi flooded around New Orleans. U.S. intel always claims the explosives were produced elsewhere since this exonerates their poor performance in insurgent settings, but Ranger doubts all explosives came from Pakistani sources.

Even if they did, what does this say about the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) in Afghanistan and Pakistan? What would be the logical conclusion?

The article claims "good news" when U.S. forces tracked down "five IED-planting teams, leading to a decrease in roadside bombs in the area from 30 a month in July and August to some five a month in September and October." This is not good news, simply a fact. Yes, a nine-man team was killed and eliminated, but their replacements are a cell phone call away.

That there was a tactical decline in the number of IED's is meaningless over the long haul. It may look good on Officer Efficiency Reports, but it does not translate into strategic success. Absent the active presence of Afghani Army and Police, the U.S. will never quell the insurgents.

You can not create something out of nothing. There is no nation, and killing Afghanis to produce a puppet state will not be successful. What exactly are U.S. forces fighting for in Afghanistan?

To reiterate Ranger's position:

1. A free and democratic Afghanistan is a chimera
2. The Taliban is not al-Qaeda
3. A free Afghanistan will not enhance U.S. security in the PWOT
4. Who gives a rat's ass about Afghanistan?

T-t-t-t-that's All, Folks!

Drunken Duck

Tell me why must our peace be this puzzle
That fractures the land, splinters war
The last nails cite the shame in our coffin
But in the end we must all die alone
--To Youth, Flogging Molly
________________

We are told the Iraqi cabinet approves a security pact with the U.S. which "will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their UN mandate expires at the end of the year," but what does this mean? The Parliament has yet to approve it, and they are the authorizing legislative body.

27 of 38 cabinet members approved of the pact, for just under a 75% approval ratio, but why is the cabinet approving anything? In a democracy, a cabinet is not a legislative body.

What about this side of the world? Why does the Iraqi parliament get a vote on the issue, but not the U.S. Congress? Since the American people are paying for this stupid Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) shouldn't our representatives get to vote on the way our tax dollars are going to be spent? If drunken duck Bush can imperially sign this pact committing the U.S. to an occupation through 1 JAN 12, then why did we bother having a presidential election?

Ranger has a multi-lateral idea: Why not pull U.S. forces out of Iraq with the proviso that the government of Iraq has the right to request U.S. combat troops should the situation demand such action. Said interaction would then be paid from Iraqi oil proceeds.

The situation in Iraq is a chicken-egg argument. Is the violence caused by the presence of U.S. troops, or is it systemic, just looking for a release valve? If caused by our presence, we should withdraw. If systemic, we should withdraw. The U.S. military is not a civil war prevention force. Any questions?

Pulling out is a win/win, and that's a slam dunk.

No Country for Young Men

This is the saddest story I have ever heard
--The Good Soldier, Ford Madox Ford
_______

Recently Lisa has been saying that Ranger's essays lack facts and seem to ramble, to which a guilty plea is entered. The fact is, the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) is lacking in facts and rambles.

Sound bytes and faulty logic predominate and guide U.S. policy, so why not with Ranger. This proves that he is still a good study.

Two more generalizations:

• The war in Afghanistan is the "Good War."
• Obama says he will escalate the War in Afghanistan

Ranger watched President-elect, Minister of Cool Obama say recently on t.v. the war in Afghanistan must be ramped up to improve the security situation in that nation. He also indicated that Osama bin Laden must be captured or killed since he is still the operational head of al-Qaeda.

"I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out al Qaeda once and for all. And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al Qaeda. He is not just a symbol, he's also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against US targets (60 Minutes.)"

Ranger would like for Obama to reveal the intelligence source of his assertion that OBL is still the operational head of al-Qaeda. If this is true, then the entire PWOT has been a national joke perpetrated upon the suckers collectively called the American taxpayers.

OBL is a person isolated in the mountains of Waziristan, and we are being told that he is still relevant. Please show this Ranger some factual information that goes beyond the normal government bullshit. BS is not an intel estimate, nor should U.S. policy be based upon it.

Ranger analysis:

1. There is no nation called Afghanistan. There is a phony government calling themselves a nation Real nations do not have widespread popular insurgencies. However, such uprisings will always be successful dislodging foreign occupation, especially in an environment of utter poverty.

• The Taliban -- however distasteful to Western standards, is reflective of Afghan culture and philosophy. The Taliban is not al-Qaeda. U.S. soldiers can not simply kill Taliban because they are distasteful. If this were the formula, then they would have to kill Rush Limbaugh, too.
  

• Killing or capturing OBL will not end the al-Qaeda threat. Killing OBL is simply revenge, with no further useful purpose. Wars are not fought for venegrance (unless your wife's name is Helen.)

• The source of al-Waeda hatred and funding is Saudi Arabia. This social and educational environment (Wahhabism) poses a greater threat via terrorism support than the Taliban.

• There are no good wars.

The U.S. has and is continuing to stake its national prestige and integrity upon illusions that are naught but smoke and mirrors. The larger issues of Afghanistan and Iraq are not relevant to the PWOT.

If both countries were to become wildly democratic tomorrow, this will not remove the al-Qaeda threat from the world scene.

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

London subway poster

A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to
against every government, and what no just government
should refuse, or rest on inference
--Thomas Jefferson
_________________

America is dealing off the bottom of the deck, and the Joker keeps coming up.

How shall the federal court system confront the violations perpetrated by U.S. officials in the democracy's Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©)?

What should be done about the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by government agents while executing the Commander in Chief's PWOT? Offenses would include but not be limited to killing and bombing "suspected" terrorists, both persons and locations, warrantless wiretaps, revocation of habeas corpus for American citizens and extraordinary renditions.

Against the "worst of the worst," things like solitary confinement and detention of individuals taken from the battlefield and held without charges, open-ended incarceration and torture.

Most Americans believe that scum-sucking terrorists should be convicted by any means available. Some recognize the administration's initial error and see the consequences that flow from that, i.e., that their very detention has radicalized the detained members and their associates, if they were not already so. However, they figure, they must therefore be kept indefinitely in the gulag lest there be a Solzhenitsyn among them.

Most likely neither the tortured nor the torturers will ever receive justice from our criminal justice system. The torturers will not be tried because the witnesses to their torture will never materialize to identify these "loyal Americans." The entire system was designed to provide anonymity to the Central Intelligence Agency contract interrogators, the largely nameless and faceless legions covered by code names and nom de guerres.

The U.S. does not want to prosecute its war criminals because we know the real culprits will walk after a few low-level sacrificial lambs are herded up to the altar.

Ranger anxiously awaits the civil suits that will result from this PWOT's illegal detentions. This will probably be the only legal recourse that the detainees will have to gain a semblance of justice. The U.S. should be held accountable at every level for its cynical and corrupt response to terrorism.

How does a democratic nation following such a convoluted road sustain the fiction that it is a nation of law and decency?

It becomes more evident daily that the U.S. is a nation which blindly believes in its own grim version of fairy tales.