Idolatry

--Guerras No!, Arcadio Esquivel 

Faulty assumptions, overly optimistic,
lack of reality
--General Ron Adams 

A great civilization is not conquered from without
until it has destroyed itself from within
--Will Durant
 _____________________

We Americans worship false political gods, despite thinking ourselves so secular, or so religious.

Here are some of our Golden Calves:

• Anti-Communism
• The Domino Theory
• Counterinsurgency Theory
• The Long War Theory
• Necessity of Nuclear Weapons Stockpile

All of these beliefs have guided our thinking to accept irrational behavior from our government.  Logical behavior is a hard thing for the human animal to achieve with any regularity, and as on the personal level, so too on the political.

Anti-Communism was United States policy from around 1917 until we became their allies during World War II.  The day following Victory in Europe (VE Day), they reverted into their formerly reviled slot.  The U.S. created and tended a nuclear arsenal capable of ending life on the planet many times over in order to protect ourselves, thinking this Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) posture would ensure our safety; it was a tenuous safeguard, for we were not sure if the Communist hoards respected life in the same way that we did.

As the Soviet empire collapsed, they did not unleash a nuclear war, verifying that our arch-nemesis was not as anarchic as we has feared.  Perhaps the present-day nemesis -- the terrorists -- are similar in that world destruction-domination is not their goal.

The U.S. Army is currently questioning the validity of the COIN theory in warfare, and perhaps it will be remanded to the graveyard of ideas, just as was the Domino Theory.  COIN did not work when practiced in Vietnam, and Southeast Asian carapace did not fall to world Communist domination after Communist tanks rolled into Saigon in 1975.

This leads us to question another shibboleth and bulwark of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), the Long War Theory.  The Long War concept justifies the open-ended roaming of the world seeking terrorists to neutralize, but the process encompasses its own weakness: Non-terrorists die in the project, forming the basis for the creation of future terrorists.  The Long War advocates are peddling the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone.

From where did the Long War concept emerge, and how did it become the darling of our military and political leaders?  Who decided that terrorism was to be a two-generation war? Why did the Department of Defense buy into such an irrational construct? Certainly it would seem there is a measure of self-serving job security involved for the hawkers of such an economically- and psychically draining policy.

The gods to which we bow usually have feet of clay.

Magical Mystery Tour

Although we have a strong nostalgic streak,
we are a hard people who no less than the ancient Romans
entertain ourselves with a steady diet of throat slitting
and torture images that can only work
to pound the tenderness out of us 
--Try a Little Tenderness, Gordon Marino 

They offer me neither food nor drink -- 
intellectual nor spiritual consolation...
[Conservatism] leads nowhere; it satisfies no ideal;
it conforms to no intellectual standard, it is not safe,
or calculated to preserve from the spoilers

that degree of civilization which we have already attained. 

--On the Conservative Party, John Maynard Keynes 
_____________________

The first article ever presented on RangerAgainstWar was titled, "Terrorism -- Is It Warfare?" (first published in Military Police, 1985).  Because the question has never been answered definitively, the United States has been fighting in two countries for over a decade.  23 years later, the question is still in play.

The latest iteration occurs in context of the President ordering drone strikes against U.S. citizens for suspicion of terrorist activities.  Let's go back to the start and talk about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the document being used as the justification for the recent drone killings.  The AUMF is NOT a declaration of war but rather a feeble effort to apply the logic and standards of war to the activity of terrorism by creating a nether zone between criminality and warfare.

But terrorism is not warfare; terrorism is a criminal activity and therefore, a law enforcement concern.  Congress may authorize whatever is on their agenda, but they may not alter the reality and definitions of what constitutes war. As terrorism is criminal behavior and not war, the President has no constitutional authority to apply the concepts of warfare to justify his assassination program.  Assassination is not a mete response to criminal behavior.

The President may or may not have the constitutional authority to use deadly force to counter a threat, but there is no law allowing him to act as judge, jury and executioner.  The President may order the military to use force in a legitimate manner, but may not order them (or the CIA or the FBI) to authorize extrajudicial deadly force missions.

There are no provisions in our U.S. code for preemptive executions.  We do not field adjudicate even miscreants like the spree shooters of late.  Though these defectives are just as heinous as terrorists, we still respect their right to Due Process.

How have we come to accept a death sentence sans trial as being appropriate for anyone? Why has the concept of "burden of proof" disappeared?  Why do we trust career intelligence analysts to give a "thumbs down" on someone's life?  Ditto sleazy CIA directors or political appointees?

If terrorism is warfare, then the Geneva Conventions would apply, and the terrorists would no longer be criminals, but would this re-definition be either smart or logical?  Assuming that terrorism = warfare (remember: it ISN'T!):

• Why do we kill in war?  Wartime killing is not limitless and does have parameters. Killing -- and each individual death -- should lead to victory; the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) cannot even define victory.

• Why do we have and abide by the Geneva Conventions?

• Wars without ends are a fool's gambit.

If terrorism is NOT warfare, then the U.S. actions vis-a-vis terrorists are criminal; if terrorism IS warfare, then our actions violate every principle of war that was ever taught to Ranger in any service school. Killing sans clearly defined goals is a greater criminality than is terrorism; minimally, it is indistinguishable from it.

While we cannot control the actions of terrorists, we should hold our leaders to civilized standards of conduct.  Killing to no purpose is not a building block of civilization.

The Big Lie

 Why this feeling? Why this glow?
Why the thrill when you say Hello?
It's a strange and tender magic you do
Mister Wonderful, that's you 
--Mr. Wonderful, Peggy Lee 

'Cause it makes me that much stronger 
 Makes me work a little bit harder
Makes me that much wiser
So thanks for making me a fighter 
--Fighter, Christina Aguilera

--Lieutenant, why are you doing this?
 --Do you ask the men the same question? 
--As a matter of fact: yes, I do ask them.
--And what do they say?
 --"Cause I get to blow shit up." 
--Well, there you go
--G. I Jane (1997)
_____________________

Ranger would rather sandpaper his ass and soak in Epsom salts rather than entertain the decision that will open combat MOS's to female soldiers.

The Global War on Terror, The Long War, gun control and the decision to allow women into the combat arms all share a lowest common denominator of being based upon a lie posing as a valid hypothesis.  The lie justifying women in the combat arms is that they will be required to meet the same standards as do male service members; they will not, and it is this inequality which fuels Rangers opposition to their admittance.

Beginning with what seems a superficial difference between gender standards, but a difference nonetheless, consider haircuts.  The high and tight is required of male recruits to maintain standards of cleanliness, neatness and uniformity of appearance; it keeps lice and other vermin from setting up scalp residence, is necessary for getting a good seal on the protective mask and it makes treating head wounds easier (these comments are aimed at the Army, as the other services have their own criteria.)  Women may wear their hair longer than men.

So we say we have one standard, but this most basic difference in regulations shows the difference, the accommodation.  If short hair is correct for men, why not for women? Clearly standards will be different, but is this desirable in the most dire of military operations when less exceptions and more codification equals more simplicity and focus on the operation?

Surely gender integration into the combat arms can be done but as with our criticisms of the endeavors in the opening paragraph, we always discuss the "hows" versus the "why's".  Why do we accept that pushing the boundary is a good and necessary thing?  Nuclear bombs might be a more elegant -- less bloody -- way of killing than all the others, but is killing an art form we wish to maximize, sanitize and perfect to the point of utter dehumanization?

William Saletan at Slate -- who routinely warps the facts to forward his social agenda -- wrote in the falsely titled, "Putting women in combat isn’t a dangerous 'experiment' anymore. It’s a success":

Members of the House of Representatives now serve with Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, who lost her legs as a helicopter pilot in Iraq. They also know Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, another Iraq veteran. And many lawmakers have visited war zones. “I’ve seen firsthand service men and women working together in a range of dangerous operations to achieve our military objectives,” says Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire. “Today’s announcement reflects the increasing role that female service members play in securing our country.” McCain agrees: “American women are already serving in harm’s way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice."

But "men and women working together" and being in harm's way does not constitute fighting in an Infantry unit; that, no woman has (openly) done.  Think of any battle in which the United States has participated -- Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Bataan, Iwo Jima, The Bulge, Khe Sanh, ad infinitum.  Can anyone say how adding women to these battles would have enhanced them?  Over 100 women have died in the last decade's War on Terror, but these have come predominantly from roadside IEDs or artillery attacks, not as a consequence of their participation in a planned combat operation.

This is a dire statement, but the U.S. will pay in blood for this ill-advised transformation of the combat arms, for one day the U.S. will fight a real theatre level war again with a forward line of troops (FLOT) and a forward edge of the battle area (FEBA), rather than fighting largely irregular non-state insurgents.  A war of maneuver is much different than an "inside/outside of the wire" paradigm.

A real war is a nightmare, and it is Ranger's experience that keeping women out of nightmares is a good thing.

Next: The emotional challenge of placing women in combat MOS's

Pulp Fiction

--Cardow, Ottawa Citizen

Any forces that would impose their will
on other nations will certainly face defeat
--General Vo Nguyen Giap

No protracted war can fail to endanger
the freedom of a democratic country.
--Alexis de Tocqueville
_______________

The recently revealed terrorist assassination program considered by the U.S. government is flatly illegal because it follows the intelligence community's "mosaic theory' of guilt, versus any legal standard.

From a New York Times article on the habeas trials of detainees in federal district court,

"Their Own Private Guantánamo":

The trial judges have also rejected much of the intelligence community’s “mosaic theory,” which calls for interpreting minor facts to suggest a greater threat. Judge Kessler, for example, refused to infer that Mr. Ahmed was an enemy fighter simply based on a “web of statements” that he had associated with enemy fighters.

She acknowledged that the mosaic approach “is a common and well-established mode of analysis in the intelligence community,” but that the legal system required more specific evidence. . .”

The mosaic theory does not require specific evidence, so much as a chain of connections, which can be based upon hearsay. Killing people without compelling evidence is not justifiable by a democratic state. Before killing, there must be credible evidence to seal a death sentence.

Intelligence types are neither judges nor juries, and their analysis should not be used to justify executions.

Gambler's Fallacy

"Al Qaida has been defeated completely.
They're shifting their operations outside of Iraq.
They will not have a safe home here anymore."
--Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, Chicago Tribune (11/18/07)

Money, its a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
--Money, Pink Floyd

Think where man's glory most begins and ends,
And say my glory was I had such friends
--William Butler Yeats
_________

Delightful. Let's see -- our actions create a reaction, in the form of the organization of a terrorist entity which didn't exist prior to our presence (= al Qaida in Mesopotamia), then we move 'em out onto the world stage, which is where we sit. Now there is something to warm the cockles of your heart.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke recently of the latest plans to lob money and weapons at Afghanistan to "counter a growing threat from al Qaida fighters" (More Recruits, U.S. Arms Planned for Afghan Military). So it's really like a game of badminton; a really costly, hopeless game of badminton.

"The Pentagon is also working to speed the flow of weaponry and armor to the Afghan forces, who suffer most of their casualties -- up to 90 percent, according to Afghan army officials -- in roadside bombings. The weapons include 5,000 U.S. M-16 rifles, due to arrive this month, with another 10,000 each month after that, for a total of 60,000, said Army Maj. Gen. Robert W. Cone, head of the training command."

Yes, the 60,000 U.S. M-16's should counter the IED threat causing 90% of the Afghan casualties nicely. A fairly typical U.S. solution--arm them to the teeth and pretend they are our friends. And friends who are happy to take a pretty payout, too. Consider the following:

"In an appearance with Gates, President Hamid Karzai also made a broad public appeal for increased assistance. "If you are asking me whether we need more, I will never say no. I will keep asking for more," he said at a packed news conference at his presidential palace in Kabul."

Now, that's a friend with a certain chutzpah, who has correctly identified his Daddy Warbucks. And get this: Afghanistan is a third-world, mud-hut sort of a place, yet Mr. Karzai is holding forth from his palace, a palace probably funded by U.S. tax dollars. Ain't democracy grand?

To the troglodyte called Ranger, the VN experience remains instructive. When the NVA conquered the South, where did all those millions of M-16 rifles and untold numbers of pistols and grenades, at least 90,000 M60 machine guns, M-60 tanks and heavy artillery go?

Two places:

• The new Vietnam sold them on the world surplus market and they ended up in PFLP, IRA, PLO, Black September and FARC arms rooms. They did not magically disappear, but were merely shifted around the troubled world and were instrumental in the growth of violence and terrorism worldwide. Just as we provided for Vietnam, we are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• In the late 70's and 80's the Japs were kicking Detroit's auto-making ass. The steel was provided by U.S.-made heavy armaments left behind and abandoned by the VN army. The Japs bought the steel surplus and melted them down to provide Toyotas and Hondas to the ever-gullible U.S. taxpayer.

Again from the article, "In a visit to the eastern province of Khost. . .Gates met with U.S. commanders who described a dramatic drop in attacks as U.S. forces partnered with the local government and boosted aid. Before an attack Monday night, 'we went seven months without an attack on a district center,' said Lt. Col. Scott Custer."

Lt. Custer's statement signifies nothing, though it is parroted by many to indicate progress. Correlation does not indicate causation. It is the logical fallacy of cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. The U.S. has not been a target of a significant terrorist attack since 9-11, but we are still wasting billions on a gambler's fallacy.

Since this LTC's name is "Custer," he should know that seven months of quiet can be nothing but a prelude to a significant event. Everything regresses toward the mean.

Finally, in a terribly patronizing moment in his recent visit, Gates, upon espying one Afghan private who was particularly skilled at shooting, said "If I'm in a foxhole, I want you next to me," to Pvt. Hussein, 18, from Nardak.

Gates has never been a foxhole, nor has he ever dug one. If Gates wants Pvt. Hussein next to him, then he should just kiss him on the ear. Pvt. Hussein would surely follow him home.

"Repeatedly during the trip, Gates voiced frustration that other countries are not fulfilling their financial and military commitments to Afghanistan. He also bristled at NATO's failure, so far, to supply an additional 3,500 trainers for the Afghan police and two more infantry battalions, and said he planned to raise the matter at a NATO meeting in Scotland this month."

When did the Afghanistan debacle become NATO's concern? Did the administration request NATO support and compliance before unilaterally invading? The U.S. position is, as always, arrogant and unilateral. NATO is well-advised to avoid that quagmire which foolhardy U.S. leaders so precipitously and stupidly embraced.

If America has a yen to nation-build, let's start in New Orleans. Their need has primacy over Kabul or Baghdad. When did U.S. taxpayers sign on as caretakers for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Ranger is disgusted by the waste, fraud and destruction that are the hallmarks of these phony wars. Let's get our focus back on the realities and welfare of America.