Where is the Love?

Where is the love
You said you'd give to me
Soon as you were free
Will it ever be
--Where is the Love?,
Roberta Flack

We shall not cease from our exploring
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And to know the place for the first time
--Little Gidding, T. S. Eliot

Ranger Question of the Day:
If a MANPAD is fired by a female soldier,
does it then become a FEMPAD?
_________________

One must wonder, is anyone is watching the military stores?

In Iraq, the U.S. had no plans to secure the munitions, ASP's after the shooting stopped. The result of this negligence supplied the wherewithal for an entire armed response to the U.S. occupation of the country.

Our soldiers died because our command structure failed to foresee this problem. This was a colossal screw up often called by the Church, a "sin of omission".

MANPADS are man portable air defense, shoulder-fired, heat-seeking missiles. When the Soviets left Afghanistan the Central Intelligence Agency bought back all the red-eye type anti-aircraft missiles that we so obligingly once gave them. Accordingly, the millions that we spent on this buy-back program was instrumental in financing the Taliban's campaign to dominate Afghanistan.

Here we are in 2011 after a lot of sand has passed under the bridge, and we find ourselves coming full-circle. The U.S. / NATO has just helped the Libyan revolutionary movement overthrow the Big Bad Wolf Moammer Qadaffi, without considering the ASP's and stored weaponry of the dictator's regime. After blindly providing the muscle to depose Qadaffi, the U.S. is having to pay for the privilege by buying back all the MANPADS (or worrying where they have gone, which is probably into the hands of terrorists -- our own Big Bad Wolves.)

Why didn't any of the himbos on any major staff consider this eventuality? Where was the Central Intelligence Agency and the DIA? Do the personnel of these agencies inhabit the same universe as the rest of us mere mortals?

The failure to address this issue us unforgivable, and brings yet another issue to the fore. Let us think "capabilities and intent" once again. Is it possible that the U.S. is being sold a bill of goods with the hullabaloo of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), and the "facts" are merely hyperbolic propaganda aimed at keeping Army Strong going?

With Iraq, if Saddam was such a bad customer, then why did he not use weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against U.S. troops in either Gulf War I or II? Why does no one ask the question? U.S. troops were clustered and ideal targets for all the supposed WMDs that United Nations Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said Saddam did not possess. Where was the dictator's malevolence? Was it a lack of intent or a shortage of capability? Both, or neither?

In Libya, if Qadaffi had all of these reported MANPADS, why did he not use them reactively? Why did he not send teams to commit international mayhem, teams that could shoot down commercial aircraft? Did he lack these contingency plans? Did he lack intent or capability? In both the Iraqi and the Libyan scenarios, the supposed threats do not hold up to a realistic appraisal.

In the world as it exists, there are MANPADS on the loose that are capable of attacking the major airways of the world. The only requirement is a gunner and a weapon on the flight path of a commercial aircraft. Another analysis will see them infiltrated to the Afghan skies and utilized to depredate U.S. tactical flights. This is a likely course of action.

Whatever the outcome of this scenario, the troubling question of incompetence continually raises its ugly little head in our endless war.

It is strong-armed robbery when the U.S. provides free bombing support and then and is then extorted to pay for the destruction of MANPADS. Someone is embezzling someone here.

No Laughing Matter

War is God's way of
teaching Americans geography
--Ambrose Bierce

Don't hang back with the brutes!
--A Streetcar Named Desire,
Tennessee Williams

Why did you have to act so mean?
Don't you know you're a human being?
--Bad Boys, Bob Marley
_________________

Ranger feels confident announcing, ahead of his class, that the U.S. has officially lost the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©).

We don't know exactly when the fateful moment occurred, but watching David Letterman's monolog last night confirmed it. The host and his audience were larfing it up over the murder of Libyan leader Moammer Qadhafi. Not one audience member protested, "That is not funny". We are sure the other humorists pandering to the lowest common denominator -- like Colbert et. al. -- also joined in the fun.

We publish photos of dead and broken bodies for the entertainment value, and then call them brutal and savage. Is it possible that people like Lettermen and audience must make all of this death into a joke because they find it so incomprehensible?

Secretary of State Clinton is seen laughing after receiving the news with a CBS correspondent HERE. "We came, we saw, he died" she declared, like a great Roman emperor (or more at Bill Murray.) Can you picture Henry Kissinger or Warren Christopher laughing at anyone's -- let alone, a head of state's -- murder? A somber, regal pose is expected by government leaders in the public eye. What hath Survivor and Co. wrought in this nation?

The health of a nation can be gauged by many things, but the level of it's public discourse and sentiment is a strong indicator of its humanity. We howled when evil incarnate Saddam Hussein was dragged from his "hidey hole", only to by lynched by a rowdy mob. We are fascinated by images of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek in a cage.

Now, we celebrate along with Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama the macabre spectacle of Qadhafi's brutal murder and the "freedom" gained by the murderous thugs who committed this atrocity, delivered to them by the beneficent largesse of the U.S. Nato bombing campaign. We print dehumanizing and humiliating photos as if to cement the former leaders' image as demons somehow worthy of this brutality. Brutality against even a brute is still brutality.

The violence done to our collective humanity is inexpressible. If Manuel Noriega was a Prisoner of War, then Saddam and Qadhafi should have been afforded the protection of a POW. According to the Geneva Conventions, abuse of prisoners under any circumstance is not permissible; yet Qadhafi was murdered and tortured in cold blood. Global Post released shocking video of a wounded Qadhafi being sodomized by the gleeful mob (Qadhafi Sodomized).

Ranger recalls the night Saddam was executed: he (Ranger) was in a redneck shit-kicking bar and they erupted in cheers at the murder, exactly the same glee in which Letterman was wallowing last night. Laughing at the dead is not Christian; it is not even human. No Enlightenment value is seen in such emotion.

Letterman went on to joke about the lack of trial in Qadhafi's case. Why do we laugh at the trashing of due process of law? Has that concept been so thoroughly trounced that we figure only rubes cleave to it? Far less funny is the reality that no progress has occurred; in fact, this is a regressive step. At the very minimum, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Why is the image of Qadhafi lying bullet-ridden in a meat locker for general photo ops, funny?

The pressing question is: Are we Christian, or a nation of morals? Do we have human empathy? What does it mean to be "human"? Are Enlightenment ideals quaint notions past their due date? Is killing a joke or a sport? If we do believe in a Creator, is he laughing, too?

Moammer Qadafhi is dead and we find fit to rejoice, but have the deaths of all the "bad guys" thus far done us any good? Two weeks ago a tidy U.S. drone killed 16-year-old U.S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen, damage collateral to a supposed kill of a "top al-Qaeda official". (Cute terminology, no? -- al-Qaeda now has officials, just the the NRA, we guess.) It is difficult to say we are winning something when we are killing children and calling it a necessity. When did we last kill a 16-year-old without a trial; for that matter, a 46-year-old?

The War on Terror is having a reverse, unintended effect upon the U.S. The world is not rising to our level, but rather, we are descending to theirs. We now laugh at death as entertainment. The Romans cheered when the Christians were martyred.

Yes, it is a very unfunny coda -- we have lost the war on terror. John McCain can have the final word when he spoke on the death of Osama bin Laden earlier this year. Though he got it wrong when he stated the much-vaunted Arab Spring was a "complete repudiation of [OBL's] violent ideology", he was correct in the following:

As we debate how the United States can best influence the course of the Arab Spring, can’t we all agree that the most obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a nation that holds an individual’s human rights as superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of government? Individuals might forfeit their life as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.

When we find mirth in brutality we are on par with the brutes.

--By Jim & Lisa

Untruth or Consequences

Insanity - a perfectly rational adjustment
to an insane world
--R. D. Laing

We are here to awaken from
our illusion of separateness
--Thich Nhat Hanh

Insanity is the only sane reaction
to an insane society
--Thomas Szasz
__________________

The ability to maintain sanity in a insane world has been frequent question here at RAW. We wonder; Can we maintain sanity only by accepting insanity as our daily ration of reality?

An example of which we speak is the current brinksmanship over a few trillion dollars and the debt ceiling, as though our existence hinged upon this amount. We languish while a recent Brown University study estimates the final bill for the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures at $3.7 to 4,4 trillion (and the fat lady is not gonna sing anytime soon.)

Buried in yesterday's Wall Street Journal was statement that NATO will continue bombing Libya because Muammer Qadaffi has no legitimacy. Did Qadaffi ever have legitimacy in this or any other arena? If then, why not know?

Page Two explains that Afghan President Karzai quickly appointed another half-brother, Shah Wali, to replace the government post vacated by his now dead half-brother Ahmed Wali (Karzai Appoints Brother in Kandahar). It seems the endless supply of Wallys will secure the Karzai's control of the Kandahar region. Now that is democracy in action; thank you, America!

So, we are bombing the hell out of Libya because its leader lacks legitimacy, while concomitantly supporting the illegitimacy of one of the most corrupt governments on the face of the earth. In one scenario we kill to oppose illegitimacy; in another, we kill to support it.

Why do Americans grind their teeth over the debt cap while having no difficulty throwing away $trillions in foreign shit holes?

Where is the sanity? After taking my meds and settling into my Ikea Poang chair, the idea hit Ranger like a ton of bricks: "What's the big deal?" It was not exactly a Thich Nanh Hanh moment, but it was clarity nonetheless. So some drug-dealing, nepotistic person is getting one over on all of us taxpaying U.S. citizens paying for a hypocritical, insane war. What do I care, except that we are back to $trillions spent and a whole lot of people fucked up in the process, which in my book is a good approximation of national insanity.

Didn't we do a similar tango here in Florida in the 2000 Presidential lotto? In our version, Governor Jeb Bush handed the presidency to his brother George W. Bush. Again, what is the big deal? A lot of sound and fury, but the result is a foregone conclusion. How can we criticize the Karzai cabal (Kabul) when the U.S. uses the same playbook?

Insanity may be a coping strategy in America today.

NATO Nonsense

--Free Ride, Paresh Nath (UAE)

Make yourself a mule,
and someone will ride you
--Carl Sandburg
__________________

U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused NATO of "collective military irrelevance" in a recent speech in Brussels, a long-time stance of RangerAgainstWar.

NATO has been superannuated since the fall of the Soviet Union, and was irrelevant in the 1970's and 80's -- it has always been a legerdemain foisted upon the American taxpayer.

From The Week's "Putting NATO in its Place":

"(fr. Madrid's El Mundo): The European countries (who else would be in Nato?) have slashed their defense budgets, with the result that, while the U.S. used to count for half of Nato's funding, it now makes up 75%. ... Only 4 of Nato's other 27 members spend 2% of their GDP on defense, as required by the treaty." [Pablo Pardo's report can be read @ "The UN, NATO and Nuclear Weapons".]

George Will recently wrote that the Libya imbroglio "is igniting a reassessment of NATO, a Potemkin alliance whose primary use these days is perverse: It provides a patina of multilateralism to U.S. military interventions on which Europe is essentially a free rider" (Libya and the Potemkin Alliance). Will suggests that some legislators are awakening to their job, in the face of Obama's disingenuous assertion that the U.S.'s involvement in Libya does not constitute a war. Fellow WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson asked poignantly in "Obama's Novel Definition of "Hostilities":

"The advent of robotic drone aircraft makes it easier to wage war without suffering casualties. But without risk, can military action even be called war? Or is it really just slaughter?"

This is a question that demands an answer.

There is no discernable military threat to the European conglomerate, so WHY is there still a NATO structure sans a threat? From Saudi Arabia's Arab News ("End of NATO?"):

"What will it take for the West to face the reality that the Cold War is over and the NATO is long past its sell-by date? It might have had its uses and played its role in checking communism. But it’s time to give it a decent burial. If the world needs an international peace keeping force to deal with trouble spots like Libya, it should exist under the UN command. "

In addition, NATO's activities should be clearly defined. For instance, it is spurious to label NATO's actions in Libya Peacekeeping (PKO) since PKO's are supposed to be neutral and humanitarian in nature. The Libyan venture is an undeclared war of aggression, plain and simple.

Now, after a NATO airstrike killed 9 civilians this weekend, Moammer Gaddafi now calls for Global Jihad against the U.S. and the West. Twenty years of grooming "the madman", down the drain. Faint traces of another fouled up "intervention" termed success waft by . . .

"Heckuva job, Brownie."


[cross-posted @ milpub.]

A Country for Old Fools

--Hanoi Hillary?

"Is that a Chevy '69?"
How bizarre, How bizarre
--How Bizarre, OMC

For my military knowledge,

though I'm plucky and adventury,

Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;

But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

I am the very model of a modern Major-General

--The Major-General's Song, Pirates of Penzance

--How'd you sleep?

--I don't know. Had dreams.

--Well you got time for 'em now.

Anythin' interesting?

--They always is to the party concerned.

--No Country for Old Men (1987)

____________________

Last night my nightmares returned me to the Vietnam War. Since time had regressed, Hillary had taken Jane Fonda's position, this time on a Libyan anti-aircraft gun, goofily looking through the sights as her assistant gunner John McCain prepared to feed rounds into the piece.

How much more bizarre does a nightmare get? Fonda was called a dupe and a traitor for supporting the Viet Cong's right to overthrow the Saigon puppet regime, yet McCain has now supplanted her in supporting his heroes, who happen to be the equivalent of his former enemy, Victor Charlie (Sen. John McCain says rebels fighting Gadhafi troops are his heroes during visit to east Libya).

The Libyan rebels and the VC are the same critter: They lack legitimacy, are not in accordance with the laws of their respective governments and are in open rebellion. Does McCain see the high irony of opposing the rebels in Vietnam War yet heralding their moral equivalent as heroes in Libya?

Neither McCain, Clinton nor O-bomb-a can clearly explain why it is incorrect for Moammer Qaddafi's troops and loyalists to attack and kill rebels, while at the same time supporting the "rebels" for doing likewise to Qaddafi & Co. Where is the sense, especially when a cash-strapped America must get the operational funds to do so at a Chinese Title & Pawn Shop?

In a word, McCain has once again pulled a flip-flop. McCain was bombing the folks of North Vietnam because they were supporting the rebels of South Vietnam. Now, he has done an about-face.

As for Clinton, it is equally difficult to understand her warmonger stance as a former Flower Child of the 60's. Clinton was the picture of a liberal intellectual, so how did she end up taking Jane's seat supporting the rebels?

Ranger wonders why Ms. Fonda keeps her mouth shut these days. Where is her outrage at the U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is any outrage for that matter?

10,000 Maniacs

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts
--As You Like It, Shakespeare

If I could change the world,
I would be the sunlight in your universe
You would think my love was really something good
Baby, if I could change the world
--If I Could, Eric Clapton

In bitter defiance
she's spitting the corps
she's wet a brood short league for combat
my mother the war
Well acquainted with sorrow,
well with grief
--My Mother the War, 10,000 Maniacs
__________________

Yellow journalism is alive and well, and MSM is a willing tool for politicians to incite the masses.

Witness The Week cover featuring Muammer Qaddafi as a maniac on the loose, his keffiyah fashioned into sort of a baseball cap turned backwards, making the sparsely-mustaschioed Qaddafi look like a renegade punk in a Tonka truck (with Latino overtones.)

The thing is, while Muammer has always been a maniac, he is not on the loose -- he IS exercising his sovereign right to deal with rebels in a civil war. Is this not exactly what Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. Army did in the U.S. Civil War? Did we not rain brutality down upon the rebels?

Bringing U.S. actions up to today, our Counterinsurgency policy (COIN) has established two new governments following our invasions which resulted in Civil Wars. The U.S. response was to brutally suppress the rebels in both countries -- so how does the U.S. condemn Qaddafi for exercising his own legitimate response to quell an uprising?

Muammer Qaddafi is in his own country and not rampaging half a world away. Even were there 2,000 rebel deaths, this is irrelevant when weighing Qaddafi's against U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, campaigns far more brutal and lacking in legitimacy.

Like Qaddafi, we killed rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan, after our actions created them. Libya and Qaddafi has a more legitimate basis for military intervention than do the corrupt, manufactured governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Qaddafi is a madman for seeking to suppress a rebellion, then we must apply the same descriptor to U.S. presidents. At least Muammer Qadaffi is contained, while U.S. powers roams the world like a hungry beast.

U.S. policy in the Middle East reminds Ranger of the Southern saying, "When you yell "fart", everyone comes running to get a whiff." We run to the fart every time one is loosed anywhere in the region. That's not being a smart feller, as Dad would say, but a fart smeller.

Why does the U.S. concern itself with every scenario blossoming on the world's stage while ignoring the stark realities within our own borders? I do not care if Libyans are killing Libyans or if the Shias or Sunnis rule Iraq. What need I care who rules Afghanistan since all of these problem areas are far from my hometown?

Let these countries fight their own Civil Wars as we did, the chips falling where they may. We fought a Civil War without a No-Fly zone.

Simply, the U.S. should not be in the Civil War business. COIN and Civil War are sides of the same coin.

Charity Begins at Home

Turnaround, every now and then I know
you'll never be the boy you always
you wanted to be
--Total Eclipse of the Heart, Bonnie Tyler
____________________

Everyone's entranced and distracted with the disruption to daily life they see in the Middle East. Maybe even a little heartened that common folk can fight the power, while probably mistakenly believing that something that looks like the American Revolution is in the making.

The hubris is ponderous -- even egregious. The WaPo's Jim Hoagland says going up in flames would be "a fitting end for the criminal you have become." It seems he, like Casablanca's Captain Renault, is positively shocked the Brother Colonel has ended up so badly.

Have become? The present perfect tense is incorrect. Correct: " . . . the criminal you are, were and always have been." My, how naive Hoagland must be to think Moammar has become a bad guy.

What was the U.S. thinking when it invited criminals like Qaddafy to the Good Guys table? Bad guys don't suddenly grow a conscience and become good; they'll sit there and take the goodies all the while thinking they can gobsmack you.

And while the United Nations dithers about the possibility of charging Qadaffi with crimes against humanity while we tie ourselves up talking down these suddenly-appeared rogue monsters, why don't we whip out the birch switches and fillip ourselves?

The monsters in our midst -- Former President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney and Company -- have never been held to account for their crimes against humanity, after all . . .a legacy which keeps on giving in 2011 and beyond.