Bouncing Betty

Theres a lady who's sure
All that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven
--Stairway to Heaven, Led Zeppelin

So, we were watching the strike [supposedly on Chemical Ali]
on the IR screen, and we see this body falling from the sky,
arms and legs splayed, and we see it bounce,
and we take bets on how many times it will bounce...
--You have to understand, the Army really does care
--Marc Garlasco, former Pentagon chief of high value targeting,
during NPR interview, 4/8/08
____________

Writing about Dexter got me thinking about appearances and reality and how murderous intent can be hidden behind a pretty face. This duplicity can be related to counterinsurgency strategy. Dexter works with the imprimatur of the police department, much as COIN is committed with that of the military.

After six years of COIN warfare in Afghansistan and five in Iraq, the Washington Post this week took on blog writer Phil Carter (who formerly wrote the private blog, intel-dump) to address the COIN operations of the U.S. government. Safe to say, the murder behind behind the pretty face will not be exposed in these entries.

What is COIN anyway and what are its objectives? The whole basis of COIN philosophy is legitimacy, and the premise of U.S. COIN operations is that they will lead to a democratization of and improvement in the lives of the local population. In reality, this is a lie.

The U.S. does not preemptively invade another country with the goal of improving the lives of the subjects of our occupation. COIN as currently practiced is a lie, and the local populations do not benefit from U.S. efforts and those of phony governments established via our largesse. It is doubtful that COIN benefits the welfare of the U.S. citizens, either. So why the charade?

We parrot our support of the troops as if at least that is a good. But even that is questionable. At best, it is usually a meaningless gesture.

How do we define "insurgency" in the context of COIN? Are insurgents evil? Bad men? Are they terrorists; nationalists? The assumption is the Lady Liberty supports COIN, but is this true?

COIN is a propaganda lie based upon an illegitimate war of aggression against nations that are neither good nor evil. They just happen to be rungs on the ladder to GWB's dreams of glory and God-filled fantasies. If COIN has legitimacy in this context, then the world has turned upside-down and the killers have become white-hatted heroes.

The objectives of COIN must benefit the citizens of the subject countries. If they do not, COIN is simply a con job perpetrated on the U.S. taxpayer.

If one examines the gulf between stated and applied U.S. COIN policy, it becomes clear that we are the problem and not the solution.

This view won't be coming to the WaPo anytime soon.

Both Sides Now

War child, victim of political pride.
Plant the seed, territorial greed.
Mind the war child,
We should mind the war child.
--War Child, The Cranberries
___________

Ranger's Definition of Terror:
The use of violence by any group for any purpose
___________

President's Day Song:
All: We are the mediocre presidents.
You won't find our faces on dollars or on cents!
There's Taylor, there's Tyler, There's Fillmore and there's Hayes.
There's William Henry Harrison,
Harrison: I died in thirty days!
All: We... are... the... Adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!
--The Simpsons
___________

The WaPo human interest piece ("The Man on Both Sides of Air War Debate") would have us know that Marc Garlasco, crack Pentagon MI analyst, understands what it feels like to be on both sides of a bomb strike.

A highly informed expert on directing airstrikes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Garlasco "really felt violated" when the Pentagon -- where he was working at the time -- was hit in 2002. But he did not support the war with Iraq, and left his Defense Intelligence gig to join Human Rights Watch in 2003 following the failed bombing attempt on Ali Hassan Majeed, known as Chemical Ali, which he helped engineer.

Standing at the edge of the crater two weeks later where 17 civilians were instead killed, Garlasco saw "this bunny-rabbit toy covered in dust nearby, and it tore me in two," Garlasco said. "I had been a part of it, so it was a lot harder than I thought it would be." I'd wager it was a lot harder yet on the people whose lives he helped destroy.

"It really dawned on me that these aren't just nameless, faceless targets. This is a place where people are going to feel ramifications for a long time."

The piece notes Garlasco is "that rare breed of human rights activist who is also a member of the National Rifle Association. " Why must it be that someone who values his Second Amendment rights would also be incautious in the employment of those weapons? Owning a gun does not de facto make a person aggressive. These divisions rend the world, and I'd venture that not Iraq and Afghanistan alone will feel the ramifications for a long time.

"A senior Army interrogator who worked closely with Garlasco said he was intimidated by how much Garlasco knew about Iraq, finding it almost scary how he could lay out a map of Baghdad and describe every building in detail, even though he had never been there."

It is a given that U.S. intelligence can describe every building in detail in Baghdad, but that surely is a meaningless fact. Bombing is useless without good intelligence, and maps of buildings don't qualify as good intelligence. That is akin to having an OnStar guidance system in your Humvee. Good intelligence is gathering, evaluating and disseminating credible information, such as that which might keep you out of stupid phony war.

After all, it is the hearts and minds that matter, or so say the COIN experts. And nobody in the U.S. command structure has a clear view of that terrain.