Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Red Dawn (?)

Just a small thought: It's easy to call the Iraqis and Afghanis "terrorists" for fighting U.S. forces, the Good Guys.

I pose the question: What would be expected of U.S. citizens if we were invaded and occupied by a superior force? Would we not welcome an uprising as freedom fighters, rather than demonizing them as insurgents or terrorists...even if they were setting off car bombs?

The title is a triple entendre.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's a question that I've been posing to friends and acquaintances for at least 3 years. I've yet to get a response that doesn't involve a deer-in-the-headlights look and something along the lines of 'who could possibly occupy the U.S.?'.

I can only conclude that they would all meekly submit to any foreign occupier, probably while mouthing something about how co-operation with our new overlords would be good for "the children".

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 9:44:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

That's pretty dangerous talk, Ranger Jim. Has the neighborhood patriotism committee come around to talk with you about all this? LOL

I know if we were invaded and occupied I'd lock and load and wait for counterattack leadership from my local office of Yellow Elephants.

I'll just bet Glenn Reynolds would be leading the resistance in Tennessee.


Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 3:05:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Thank for your thoughtful comments.

Americans are rather sheltered and arrogant, and our leadership is not helping matters. It is my concern too that those Toby Kieth-spouting Americans would cave if push comes to shove.

Society today seems soft--all bark, no bite; all reality show, little reality.

Also, today's society acquiesces too entirely to the children, another point of contention for me; anything is possible, all under the aegis of being "good for the kids." Such mindless go-along-to-get along requires so much less thinking, and the sugar coating would make our ready subjugation so much more palatable.--Lisa

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 3:21:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

The duty of a patriot would indeed be to rally and lock and load (of course, if I had my druthers, I'd prefer to load, then lock!)

Right on, Lurch, re. the yellow elephants. Since I'm pretty non-partisan, though, I have a hard time thinking of any Democrats who could lead the charge, to include Wesley Clark. Tell me about Glenn Reynolds, sometime--don't know who he is. --Jim

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 3:42:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a what if scenario I play in my head since the "we fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" comment.

Since we have a significant number of veterans I like our chances.

I just have a feeling that the tough guys in the media, namely the Faux News, would turn Vicchy or Tory on us.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 at 10:43:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, by saying such a thing you are subject to being called a "cowardly, America-hating, Osama and Saddam loving, latte-sipping liberal who wants to see our soldiers killed" by the right-wing thought police.

But the fact is you are right. If I was an Iraqi, there's a pretty good chance that I would be doing about the same thing, using violence to expell a foreign occupation. Especially if the estimates are true and over 600,000 of my countrymen were killed in the process.

I can only imagine what would happen if we made an even more foolish mistake and invaded Iran. Iranians are not tribal like the Iraqis. They have been a true nation for thousands of years. While the average Iranian hates the mullahs in charge, they love their country even more.

It's almost as if the US is suffering from a collective case of Aspergers syndrome - a high functioning autism. We are, as a nation, able to function more or less normally, but in relations with others we completely lack a "theory of mind" and live in our own little world. We are completely incapable (or unwilling) to put ouselves in another person's shoes and understanding why our foreign policy decisions might cause some folks to get pissed off.

Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 9:16:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lurch said...

I agree with your views about Americans. This is a societal weakness brought on by a disgracefully poor educational system, hogtied by, interestingly enough, the Texas state board of education, which has so many shools that American textbooks are written so as to comply with their standards. Therefore children today can't find France on a world map, identify the capital of Great Britain, or discuss what countries fought in the first world war, or who won, let alone tell you about the economic and geopolitical problems that caused the war.

For some reason, "lock and load" is an American military aphorism, like "military intelligence" or "Mk II pencil" at the firing range.

Glenn Reynolds teaches law at U. Tennessee and also writes as a Fascist pundit. A careful study of his linguistic and language skills, as evidenced on his blog, makes a sensible man feel great joy for any future lawyer who goes up against Reynolds' students in a court room.

Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 3:32:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Thanks for bringing me up to update.

Lurch, I was trained on the M1/M14 rifles, and it was impossible to lock and load, and this still boggles my simple mind. Like you say, L&L. The Mark II pencil got me through more physical training tests than shooting tests.

Friday, October 20, 2006 at 1:25:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Mike D,

I refuse to accept any label, liberal, conservative or otherwise. But since you are faithful reader, I don't need to tell you this. It breaks my heart that American soldiers are dying for such flimsy political reasons.

I commonly refer to the OSS experience in France as my yardstick for guerilla warfare. The OSS and their operatives assassinated, ambushed, and used explosives to further their cause. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The Iraqis obviously study history.

Thanks for your readership,

Friday, October 20, 2006 at 1:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think a lot of the problems you are facing is that the buerocrats are living in the theoretical world, while your (and our) soldiers are forced to live in the real world. In the buerocratic world, any force that isnt an organized army with ground-to-air strike capacity is a level 1 threat, according to the theory of Rumsfeld. In the buerocratic world, the army is simply expected to *take care of it*, thats a politically given, and they never factor in the possibility of failure because only loosers loose etc. So you get these totally stupid conflicting missions, like both winning the hearts and minds of the locals AND exterminating the clans of Fallujah. At the same time.

From what I hear from my contacts in Afghanistan, the air-to-ground doctrine is hell to deal with on the ground. Shit happens and the jets come in indiscriminately, creating blood-debts and killing off all positive relations with bad accuracy & gung-ho attitude to civilian life. Traffic and logistics are also hell for the locals: Convoy-orders are to run over anything that gets in the way and keep on moving. Imagine having convoys running at full speed through your local town...

Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 8:11:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Nartin K,

I agree with your assessment. The problem is, in this country we've accepted the myth that the state has the right to kill and has a monopoly on violence. If the mob kills, it is bad; if the U.S. military kills 1000x as many, it's patriotism.

The people we're fighting now have no protective state mantle of protection, so the U.S. viewpoint cannot accept any of their actions as being legitimate. It doesn't matter that we are responsible for destroying their state...

Friday, October 27, 2006 at 2:12:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home