The Face Of War

The Ancient Egyptians were probably the first people to establish a professional army composed of career soldiers. The Mesopotamians also established a professional army about the same time. These armies were trained and led by a professional corps of officers and tacitly led by a variety of Kings and Princes although many of these were generals and warriors in their own right. These armies were organized into various specialty units such as; infantry, cavalry (chariots), archers (artillery), and the usual corps of supporting units like engineers, ordinance, logistics, etc. Weaponry tended to be alike as did strategies and tactics with the outcome of battles being largely dependent on the quality of the leadership and the discipline of the troops. Battles tended to fall into two categories—battlefields and sieges – or offense and defense.

This was the pattern of warfare until the introduction of gun powder in the 13th Century. Prior to that, changes were largely improvements to existing weapons technology, i.e. cross bow, long bow, shorter Roman Lance, shield design, stronger castles, etc. With the introduction of gun powder came cannons, which rendered the Castle largely obsolete, although these strong points existed right up to the First World War in the form of the Maginot Line. The introduction of muskets again changed the face of war although the same tactics which relied on massed troops maneuvering on the battlefield under fire, continued through the American Civil War.

The reaction to the carnage of the American Civil War led to a revision in tactics, which led to a more defensive mentality reminiscent of the siege warfare of the Middle Ages where troops were sally forth from the castle and retreat back to the Castle if things didn’t go well. But World War II led to some additional tactical rethinking. First – battles became three dimensional with the introduction of the Air Force. This allowed generals to reach behind the front lines and attack the enemies infrastructure, spelling the end to permanent strong defensive positions. But in addition to the Air Force, the Armored Cavalry was now able to sweep around these strong points and render them untenable. But overall while the tactics were refined, the weapons improved, and battlefield changed to three dimensions, the essential battle structures remained unchanged.

That is while the battlefield was now larger it was still controlled by a Central Command and relied on Corps, Division, Brigade, and Battalions executing a planned strategy. Officers in the field were given very specific objectives, reported back through a chain of command, and had limited flexibility in their decisions. Throughout WW II Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, and the Air Force were major components of land warfare. The objective was to physically destroy the enemy and to occupy his land. However, overlooked in the enthusiasm surrounding the victory, was the residual war in China, which was actually a civil war between the Chinese Nationalists and the Chinese Communists. The struggle was interesting for several reasons, but primarily because the Nationalists were well armed, well organized, and supported by the Western Powers. Although the Communists had the support of Russia they were essentially on their own. They were not well armed but were well organized and highly motivated but what set them apart was their reliance on guerilla tactics and their ability to simply blend into the landscape and population.

Although guerilla tactics have been employed since the Israelites fought the Romans, they really have only been destabilizers rather than a victorious strategy. But Mao Tse Tung used these tactics very successfully and eventually drove the Nationalists offshore to Taiwan where they remain. Since that time the Viet Cong successfully employed these tactics against the French in Indochina and then later against the US in Viet Nam. But during this time several things remained constant. First, the Guerillas were backed up by trained and well organized military units. Secondly the battles continued to be orchestrated and controlled by a central command structure with the units organized into the classic military structure, such as; corps, divisions, brigades, etc. But more importantly, the various combat arms remained distinct and functioned as distinct units, other than the liaisons and this is how things stood for Gulf War I. In fact Generals Powell and Schwartzkopf were probably the last of the classic generals fighting a classic war where maneuvers were at the corps and division levels, with armor based flanking movements ala General Patton.

Gulf War II started much the same way with General Franks using division based tactics supported by the air force to overwhelm the Iraqi Army in a matter of weeks. But General Franks aided by SecDef Rumsfeld changed the face of war and it continues to evolve. First, gone are the distinctive work uniforms and in their place are the ubiquitous camouflage used by all branches. Units are now made up of combinations of Marine, Army, and Air Force personnel. These units are not always mixed branch but commonly are. Furthermore, even those homogenous units can be made up of Artillery, Infantry, and Armor troops with all being employed as infantry.

This new face of warfare has been brought about by the rapid collapse of the Iraqi military and the unanticipated rise of the militias and incursion of foreign guerillas. This new form of warfare is not only guerilla based but relies of terror. In this environment the generals and central command have largely been relegated to advisors or at the least have lost any close control over day-to-day field operations. Instead, it is the Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and the occasional Major who are conducting the war with only broad direction from the central command. Tactical units are now at the Squad, Platoon, and Company level with occasional use of battalion or brigade sized units. Large field maneuvers have vanished and in their place are these small unit battles conducted by the junior officer corps. These junior officers may be Marines, Army, Navy Special Forces, or Air Force.

The result has been a huge improvement in inter-branch communications, much greater teamwork, and a blending of the Armed Forces into a cohesive whole that has not been seen before. The military is changing not only how it thinks but how it fights. Most recently small company sized units have taken up residence within the neighborhoods they patrol and protect. This is in response to the guerilla tactics of blending in with the population. By abandoning the central encampments (i.e. castles or strong points) the military now is more vulnerable but also more able to determine friend from foe as they become familiar with the local population. This also gives them more frequent and reliable human intelligence.

SecDef Rumsfeld has been heavily criticized for his actions, especially by those politicians and old fashioned generals who want to retain control and to continue fighting the last war. Just as General Billy Mitchell demonstrated the value of the air force and its effectiveness against battle ships and paid the price for his audacity, Secretary Rumsfeld may be in the same category. Time will tell but it is unlikely that the American war machine will ever go back to what it was and in the future the Sergeants and Junior Officers will play a much larger role and have greater flexibility.

A Strategic View

It seems our Congress, the Media, and the World in general continues to view the “War on Terror” as some sort of political strategy foisted on us by the current administration working in league with the oil companies. Certainly this seems to be the view share by a great many people, especially those in Hollywood (e.g. George Clooney). However, this is simply not the case because the war on terror did not begin on 9/11/01 nor will it end with the establishment of a civilian and secular government in Iraq. In fact, Iraq is simply another battle – or series of battles in the larger war – the Jihad – being conducted by the Muslims. This does not minimize the gravity of the situation in Iraq but it should be put into the same context as the Crusades, the struggle in Spain to displace the Muslims, the Mah’di in Sudan, and the sundry battles and skirmishes that have been fought between Christians and Muslims along their borders since the death of Muhammad in 632 AD. From that time until now the Muslims have been single minded in their pursuit of world domination – that is to convert the entire world to Islam.

Following the death of Muhammad Islam swept across the Middle East and North Africa in an explosive growth but it ran headlong into the Eastern Roman Empire. At the time, the Western Roman Empire was in a shambles. Rome had been sacked, there was no central government or authority and the barbarians were gleefully destroying every vestige of Roman power. The surviving Eastern Empire was beset by plots, intrigues, poor communications, and the rising power of the Christian Church. The people under the protection of Constantinople were being taxed at an ever increasing rate and receiving less and less protection and benefit. Against this backdrop the Muslims gave people a choice – the sword or convert to Islam. For most this was not a difficult choice to make. After all Islam accepts the precepts of Judaism and Christianity with the exception that Jesus is viewed as a Prophet of God rather than the Son of God. The Muslims also brought peace and structure to what was becoming an increasingly chaotic situation.

This was the First Jihad which spread Islam across all of North African and into the Iberian Peninsula. The West was still in chaos with small kingdoms, fiefs, and an aristocracy that was essentially a series of warlords vying for power, prestige, and loot. There was little to stop the spread of Islam until Charles Martel – the father of Charlemagne – stopped them at the battle of Tours – celebrated in the poem :The Song of Roland”. However, the pressure on the Eastern Empire was relentless and ultimately the Emperor summoned help from the West and thus the First Crusade was born. Unfortunately the government in Byzantium had not realized that the West had deteriorated to such an extent and the army that came to their aid was bent as much on looting as freeing the Holy Land from the Infidels. Worse the Crusaders were truly barbarians and their conduct and treatment of the Muslims was so barbarous that it is remembered even today. The Crusades never really resolved anything and there the matter sat with various battles and skirmishes continuing off and on until 1492 when the Spaniards defeated the Muslims at the battle of Granada and drove them from Iberia.

During this period of Islamic expansion and growth the Islamic world was beset by its own internal dissentions and factions seeking power. Gradually the Ottoman Turks came to power and with the Second Great Jihad they succeeded in destroying what remained of the Eastern Roman Empire. Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453 and the great cathedral of Saint Sophia became a Mosque, which it is to this day. Even though the Ottomans continued their pressure on the West it was an empire rooted in theology and this proved to be its Achilles Heel. While the military continued expanding into Eastern Europe, internally the empire was beset by warring sects and rivalries as each small group proclaimed that it was the “true way of the Prophet”. This fragmentation weakened the Ottomans overall and by the late 1600’s the Venetians had defeated the Ottomans at sea and the Austrians had defeated the Ottomans at the siege of Vienna.

Although the Ottoman Empire remained intact, in reality it gradually fragmented into various Sheikdoms, principalities, and roving tribes – the Arabs. This situation continued up until World War One when the Ottomans – through diplomatic bumbling by England and France – sided with the Germans. Lawrence of Arabia was dispatched to the Middle East where he was very successful in exploiting this internal dissention by turning the Arabs against the Ottomans (Turks).

Although Lawrence made many promises to the Arabs the French and the English never intended to honor any of them and at the end of the War the French and English merrily divided up the Middle East into “spheres of influence” and “countries”. Thus the world witnessed the birth of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Iran, Arabia, et al. In some cases these had historic precedent (e.g. Mesopotamia – now Iraq) and in others (e.g. Jordan), the boundaries were arbitrary. The sheer arrogance of the English and French is breathtaking and it was their actions that reignited the anti-western sentiment and gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The group that felt most betrayed was the Arabs who were under the control of the House of Saud who had been placed in power by the English. Ironically, the Arabs were not well educated and consisted mostly of nomadic herdsmen. Because the holy cities of Medina and Mecca were on the Arabian Peninsula they fell under the control of the Arabs, who were simple people with a fundamentalist view of Islam – now called Wahhabism.

It is virtually impossible to draw parallels between Islam and Christianity but to gain some perspective on Wahhabism consider that the Sunni’s are similar to the Catholics, the Shi’a similar to protestants, and the Wahhbi’s equivalent to some minor Christian Sect who believe in the absolute literal reading of the Bible. If the teachings of this sect were to gradually spread into the mainstream of Christianity it would be similar to what is happening in Islam. There are two aspects of Wahhabism that have an immediate impact on Christians and Jews in particular and the world in general. The first of these is a virulent hatred of Western Culture which is being used as a scapegoat for the failures that plague the Islamic countries. The blame for these failures in growth, development, and prosperity are being shifted onto the West rather than being accepted as internal failures. This is roughly equivalent to the Germans blaming their economic failures prior to WW II on “the Jews”. The second and more overt problem of Wahhbism is the literal reading of the Qur’an, which calls for the destruction of all Infidels – men, women, and children. This hearkens back to the First Great Jihad when the Byzantines were given the option to convert or die. This is the same option being given today because Wahhabism calls for the complete destruction of anything that is not based on a literal reading of the Qur’an – hence we Muslims killing Muslims. This is the basis for the horrific conduct of the Taliban in Afghanistan, some of the barbarous practices in Saudi Arabia, and oppressive practices of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. It is Wahhabism that gave rise to the new Ali Pasha of Islam (military leader) Osama Bin Laden who is now leading what he calls the “Third Great Jihad”.

However, this War on Terror to the West but the Third Great Jihad to Islam did not begin with the first attack on the World Trade Center or on 9/11. In fact, this actually began in the 1920’s and the first battle began with the fall of the Shah of Iran and the capture of the American Embassy in Teheran. The Shah was an American Ally, a secular Muslim and embarked on a plan to “westernize” Iran. Sadly he misjudged the temper of the Iranians and the extent that Wahhabism had spread through the teachings in the Mosques. The Shah was allied with America and was not strongly anti-Israel. Of course this misjudgment toppled his regime, cost America a valuable ally, and inspired the militant Muslims to occupy the American Embassy. The West lost this battle due to the timidity of President Carter.

President Carter’s inability to react to what was seen as an act of war by everyone on the planet but him and his administration, indicated to the Muslims that America was a paper tiger. With the assumption of power by Khomeini, the Shah’s military was purged and opposition to the fundamentalist regime suppressed. This was the first major battle in the Third Great Jihad and it was a resounding tactical and strategic victory. The Wahhabi’s now had a base of operations funded by the oil wealth of Iran and the first step in the restoration of the Great Caliphate was now complete. The long range plan is to restore the Caliphate, which was formerly based in Baghdad. This plan calls for the overthrow of the secular governments of all countries with a Muslim majority and their replacement with a religious one loyal to the Caliph (i.e. the secular and religious head of Islam). If successful this strategy would result in theocratic governments in Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, the Emirates, Kuwait, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Lebanon, Chechnya, Tunisia, Syria, Malaysia, Indonesia, Palestine, and Israel. Beyond that-- and the second phase of the strategy -- would be the overthrow of the governments of Spain, France, Albania, Macedonia, Armenia, and possibly Greece. This strategy was initially successful in Afghanistan and significant inroads were made in Chechnya and Pakistan but the Russians have stymied (so far) the efforts in Chechnya and General Musharraf blocked them in Pakistan by staging a military coup. The Americans aided by a military coalition drove the Taliban from power and are on the way to setting up a moderate Muslim state in Afghanistan.

The strategy of this Third Great Jihad is to infiltrate governments and the military as a prelude to taking over the country. The incumbent secular leadership is either overthrown in a coup or assassinated, but this has not always been successful. Examples of this strategy are the assassination of Sadat and attempts on Hussein in Jordan, Mubarak in Egypt, and Musharraf in Pakistan. Pakistan is a particular target because of their nuclear ability and the military and intelligence services are already infiltrated by Al Qaeda. Strategically Al Qaeda is most likely behind the confrontation in Kashmir between the Muslims and Hindu’s. The target is most likely Musharraf with the hope that the instability in Kashmir will destabilize his position and bring about a coup by pro Al Qaeda Officers.

But the long range strategic plan of Al Qaeda is much more complex and far reaching. It seems to have three objectives. The first objective is to drive the United States out of the Middle East. This objective rests on the assumption that the United States is incapable of bringing its military might to bear for any extended period. Viet Nam is considered an example of this and the current strident voices in Congress and the media are viewed as the precursors for this inevitable withdrawal. The second objective is to gain control of the Middle Eastern oil reserves. This not only would provide Al Qaeda with enormous funds but it would give them a stranglehold on the West – especially Europe. They encourage Americans and the media to believe that we rely on Middle Eastern Oil for survival. This may be true of Europe but it isn’t true of the US. We not only have our own (untapped) reserves but we get substantial amounts of oil from the North Sea. But the perception is sometimes more powerful than the reality and with control of the Middle Easter Oil Al Qaeda could pressure the West to acquiesce in virtually any objective they might set. France in particular is vulnerable because by forcing France to allow greater immigration the Muslim population could increase and effectively convert France into a Muslim state. The third objective is to gain Nuclear weapons. The initial attempt failed in Pakistan but Iran has always been in the pocket of Al Qaeda and without doubt they are pushing hard to develop nuclear weapons. Once this is done – and it appears imminent – they will attempt to destroy Israel. They most probably will attack the US in Iraq and the new Iraqi government if it is viewed as secular.

The wild card here is Israel and the Iranians are well aware of it. Israel has nuclear capability and if attacked with nuclear weapons there is little doubt but that they would retaliate in kind. The US would be unable to prevent this. There is also the possibility that Israel would launch a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear plants and the US would probably be unable to prevent this as well. Strategically the waters are muddied even further by growing unrest of the Iranian people who are growing tired of the Mullahs – just as the settlements in the New World grew tired of the religious rule of the Puritans. If the Mullahs persist in their strict enforcement of anti-western policies, which is actually a war against western culture – it could eventually bring down the government. The probability of this happening would be greatly increased with a Pro-America secular government in Baghdad.

With even a little reflection and analysis it seems obvious that the current administration has been able to thwart these strategic plans. The Taliban have been driven from Afghanistan. Egypt has finally conducted what appears to be a free election and at the very least Mubarak’s stranglehold has been loosened. Pakistan is cooperating with the US and gradually driving out the Al Qaeda sympathizers. Pakistan and India seem to be moving to an accommodation relative to Kashmir. Yemen has been more cooperative and has actually tried and executed some of the Al Qaeda militants. The insurgents are steadily losing ground in Iraq and a secular government looms on the horizon. Al Qaeda has lost their base in Afghanistan and have been forced back into Iran but the Iranians are under increasing pressure from the UN. Essentially the administration has placed the UN into a “put up or shut up” situation relative to Iran and Al Qaeda.

These successes have not gone unnoticed by Al Qaeda and they have been actively lobbying in the UN and have launched counter strategies. The UN is dominated by countries with significant Muslim populations or countries (e.g. France) who are opposed to the US and resist any action by the UN that might threaten Al Qaeda’s strategy. Al Qaeda has also launched counter strikes in the form of terror attacks in Spain and England in an effort to separate America from our allies. This worked in Spain but has not worked in England although it has weakened Tony Blair. Then Al Qaeda is behind or at least supporting the various anti-war demonstrations both here and abroad. It is unlikely that these anti-war activists are aware that they are being manipulated by Al Qaeda. They are being motivated by a virulent dislike of the current administration or a sincere belief that war is evil. There is little doubt that these people are being supported by Al Qaeda if not directly certainly indirectly. The objective is drive the US out of Iraq, restore the Taliban in Afghanistan, topple the Saudi Royal House, and to weaken the US militarily and economically.

The historical precedent for this is Europe after WW I. The anti-war crowd gained control of the governments in France and England. The English Parliament disarmed unilaterally over a long period of time in the mistaken belief that in so doing they would not present a threat. In reality by disarming they presented an easy target. The “peace at any price” philosophy dominated Europe and the result was the Germans occupied all of Europe – including the neutral nations – within months. This is the scenario that Al Qaeda is trying to duplicate. So far they have not been successful but they hope to install a more pliable administration in the next election and the extreme left is moving in that direction.

Part of this strategy is to force the US to subordinate our interests to the UN. However, the current administration had signaled the UN that this isn’t going to happen. The appointment of Bolton as UN Ambassador demonstrated that the US is tired of the way the UN is operating. The Oil for Food scandal is just the tip of the iceberg. However, there are many liberals who are ashamed of any national sentiment and sincerely believe we need a global government in the form of the UN. There is little doubt but that Al Qaeda was astonished by the reaction of the American people following 9/11. They had not anticipated how America rallied around the President or the President’s resolve. They attempted to defeat him and were further astonished by his re-election. At this point they are looking forward to the next election and will push for a total withdrawal of American Troops from the Middle East and a return to the UN.

We are engaged in life and death struggle, which appears to be unnoticed by many of our leaders. Too many Americans view this “War of Terror” as an “Oil For America” or a “Bush War for Haliburton” which is a view being pushed by Al Qaeda. The reality is this is a war of survival and it is at its base a religious war with no quarter asked or given. It is quite probable that this war will go on for years possibly a hundred years or more. From the perspective of the Muslims this is simply an extension to their struggle (Jihad) that has been going on for over thousand years already. However, the weapons technology has now progressed to the point to where an end point could be realized. We cannot falter now – we must press on – regardless of the cost.

Death To America

Several things appear to be coming together at this point in time. Recent surveys show that the younger people – mostly of college age – are moving to the right in spite of everything their liberal and progressive professors are preaching to them. It seems that there is an upsurge of anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness, and anti-open borders. Assuming that these surveys are accurate (see South Park Revolution) then Governor Lamm’s speech takes on a less ominous tone. This is not to minimize what he says but intended to indicate that others see the threat and gradually our society will move to correct itself. With that as an introduction let’s address some of the salient points made by the Governor.

The learned author of Mexifornia has struck a chord with me for several reasons. First, I have lived in California off and on for many years and secondly I travel there frequently on business and what I see is how the state is being transformed into a third world country. The author takes the position that the root cause is immigration both legal and illegal but I’m not so sure of this. I think the root cause is the unbelievable hyper-sensitivity of the overly liberal population. The entire state is filled with a growing minority of white people (Caucasians ARE a minority there) who take up every cause and carry it to extreme. The result is a state where English is increasingly not spoken and the languages spoken consist of Spanish, Viet Namese, Chinese (various dialects), and Hindi. Signs are in Chinese and business is conducted in Spanish. The schools are bilingual thus assuring that the immigrants don’t “lose their culture”. Any attempt to correct this situation is viewed as “racist” with that word being used as an epithet hurled at anyone who dares think that America is a Christian and English speaking country. Unless something is done soon, California will be the most populous state with a huge voting population supplemented by illegal immigrants who are illegally voting everyone else’s pocket book. The result is a huge population of homeless, welfare recipients, under educated, and unemployable people who are simply parasites protected by the misguided view that all cultures and languages are equal and that everyone has a RIGHT to be in the US.

Toynbee is an interesting fellow and his theories on history are seen as controversial by many. His major postulation is that civilization moves from East to West with civilizations growing and then declining as civilizations to the West blossom with decline of those Eastward. He did not address the issue of multi-lingual impact although this is an interesting point. The Roman Civilization existed for a 1000 years but the official language of the Empire was Latin but there were hundreds of languages spoken throughout the Empire. So the real point might be not in the number of languages spoken but in fragmenting the government by conducting official business in many languages. Therefore, the idea of teaching school in multiple languages, multi-lingual ballots, and the multi-lingual governmental documents is the real issue. This is a strategy of fragmentation and not unification.

The issue of culture is even more serious because the Judeo-Christian culture is the cornerstone of America and to ignore this is quite dangerous. This is most obvious in observing the widespread growth of Islam whose very foundation is antithetical to Christian Society. Allowing this type of culture to spread into the society as a whole is dangerous because they are opposed to many of the fundamental concepts of our society – starting with the equality of women and the endorsement of violence. Multi-culturalism is in fact very dangerous and it is time we put a stop to this, because as the Governor points out once cultures are allowed to grow and perpetuate themselves within a larger culture they move for independence and the resulting conflicts – with Muslims especially – violent conflict.

The question of education is also a source of concern. As the “Mexifornian’s” lead the charge for not calling illegal immigrants illegal and according them the rights given to citizens, we are virtually assuring a growing group of unassimilated and under educated people whose inability to function lead them to violence and destructive behavior. Illegal immigrants are not “immigrants” they are criminals who have broken the law and should be treated as such by immediate deportation without so much as a hearing. If the Mexifornians and their captive 9th Circuit Court disagree then the illegal immigrants found throughout the United States should be immediately deported to Mexifornia. At the very least the border should be closed – by force if necessary.

The idea of “Victimology” I think transcends the issue of immigration and a malaise that has been introduced via our school system. Students are no longer held to any standard partially due to fuzzy thinking educators but also by parents and courts who do not think the schools have any right to discipline a student or even expel them. The result is students come out of school with very little self-discipline and even less respect for authority. Therefore, when something goes wrong it is never their fault – the fault lies with some one else – generally with deep pockets. Therefore, when some idiot slams a car door on his hand it is never his inattention or carelessness it the fault of the manufacturer for not putting some warning on the door indicating that slamming the door on your hand can hurt. Every public building in California has a sign – in some cases many signs – stating that the building contains toxic chemicals that can cause cancer. The chemicals in question are the cleaning supplies used by the janitors in cleaning the building. This cannot be fixed as long as jurors insist on rewarding idiots for their irresponsible behavior. Many times the victim is a victim of their own irresponsible behavior and it is time many of the victims are held accountable for their bad decisions.

Another serious problem is the tyranny of the minority. This is being played out every day in our Congress and in the court system. The fact that the vast majority of people in this country are Christian is ignored and their rights trampled by a minority of secularists. Every single day decisions are made that ignore the will of the people in favor of some small special interest group which has resulted in bi-lingual schools, multi-cultural celebrations, elimination of Christmas, and the list goes on and on. If these minorities find life too difficult and find they cannot function within the majority then they should either relocate or learn to live with their unhappiness.

The issue of jobs moving overseas is much more complex and the role played by unions, the World Trade Organization, and the insatiable demand by Americans for more and more is largely ignored. The fact is that most of the jobs going overseas are manufacturing jobs and these jobs are gradually dying out worldwide. Some high tech jobs are moving overseas but my research indicates that this is partially due to highly inflated salaries in the US. But the quality of the service provided overseas is generally lacking and many of these jobs are coming back. However, the demand for skilled labor is outstripping the world wide supply. Perhaps one of the largest culprits is the unions who have raised loafing to an art form. Plus their demands for benefits have grown to such obscene proportions that they cannot be sustained. For example if General Motors lays off a worker that worker still gets 95% of their pay for 2 years. Their health benefits are incredible and they either nothing at all or only pay 7%. No wonder it is less expensive to send work overseas. Of course the WTO is a sham that permits countries such as China to compete using slave labor. This should be addressed.

However, the points made by Governor Lamm do indeed outline the Death of America or at least the America that was founded in 1776. Since the mid-1950’s the courts and left wing have been chipping away at the American Ideal and the time is long past for the majority in this country to take back control because if we don’t then the Death of America becomes a real possibility.

Horrors ! I Smell Profits

There is another one of those emails making the rounds that purports to show the obscene profits being made by the drug companies -- for example:

Claritin 10 mgConsumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71Percent markup: 30,306%

Keflex 250 mgConsumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88Percent markup: 8,372%

Lipitor 20 mgConsumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80Percent markup: 4,696%

The alleged author of this email is:

Sharon L. Davis
Budget AnalystU.S. Department of Commerce
Room 6839
Office Ph: 202-482-4458
Office Fax: 202-482-5480
E-mail Address: sdavis@doc.gov

Now Ms Davis may or may not be a real person, but the objective here clearly is to indict the drug companies as greedy capitalist pigs. It is worth noting that the comparison is strictly between the ingredients and the shelf price with the conclusion being that the difference represents the profit margin of the manufacturing drug company. This conclusion can only lead one to conclude that Ms Davis is either totally devoid of any underestanding of economics, manufacturing, distribution, and capitalism, or she has a hidden agenda, which is to show how evil capitalism is.

Several years ago I did value chain research on a wide variety of products ranging from potato chips to automobiles and what I found was very interesting indeed. It is quite common for the raw ingredients to cost pennies while the product cost dollars. One of the products my team and I looked at was canned English Peas. The cost of the peas in the can was miniscule with the cost of the can itself costing more than the product inside. Virtually the total cost of this can of peas was in the packaging and distribution -- items that this mininon of the Department of Commerce glossed over in her rush to demonstrate the greed of the drug companies. In her example the drug ingredients cost pennies but the end cost is many times that, what is missing in the analysis is the rationale for the mark-up. The implication is that the drug companies and pharmacies are greedy big companies gouging everyone in the name of profit. This is a typical view held by most liberals because for the most part they rarely think and substitute what they "feel" for analysis and feelings are more important to liberals than facts. First off consider that the R&D cost for these drugs are huge plus the successful ones must pay for the R&D of the drugs that never make it. Then there are processing costs and anyone who has ever been in a process manufacturing facility knows how expensive they are and these manufacturing costs(taxes, wages, maintenance, etc.) must be absorbed by the product and consumer. Certainly, there are G&A costs as well and the marketing part of these costs are always suspect but even if these were eliminated entirely the end cost would not be greatly affected and my value chain research demonstrated this. Once the product is made -- i.e. the pill, then they must be packaged and shipped and then distributed. All of these steps add overhead and cost.

So the complaint is that the pharmacies are gouging their customers (and taxpayers via medicare) so they can build a Walgreen's on every corner. Obviously the author of the complaint feels this is wrong but where the consumer should get their prescriptions filled is ignored. This looks very much like the Neo-Marxist attitudes that pervade the universities. The consumer be damned -- we -- the government -- know what is best for you because you ignoramuses are too stupid to make decisions for yourself. Apparently Ms Davis would have the government set up their own pharmacies or better still set the price for the product. The fact that price controls have failed from the time of the Roman Empire until now is generally ignored just as the failure of Marxism is ignored.

This entire complaint is poorly thought out, alarmist, and certainly doesn't bear any marks of competent research. I suspect it is simply another example of some lightly educated liberal who is convinced that profit is bad, business is evil, and all of those engaged in these are simply instruments of the devil. I did notice that the author is not engaged in any of these nefarious activities but works for the Government where they spend our money on things that they think are good for us even if we don't want them.

.

Bush Bashing

The Bush Bashing continues and there is this continuing misconception that he is dumb as a rock, but I disagree. True he is a poor speaker but not being articulate is not the same as being stupid. He is actually a very intelligent man and an excellent executive. Having spent a great deal of time in senior level positions (near CEO's of Fortune 500 companies) plus having been trained as a leader and having a Master's degree in Management, I feel I know an executive when I see one. Bush has surrounded himself with some very intelligent and highly experienced people. He solicits their opinion and seeks opinions differing from his own. He makes the decisions and takes the heat accordingly. The irony is that when he has listened to Powell, whom the internationalists love, it has always backfired because the international community has no desire to solve problems they see as America's. Instead they are attempting to hide their involvement in most of these problems and are doing as much as they can to embarrass Bush and "teach America a lesson". However, the President's conduct in the face of these attacks has demonstrated (to me at least) that he is an excellent leader and manager. He also has a firm grasp on the International situation and what it takes to make diplomacy work. What few people seem to realize is that we are involved in a sea change relative to power centers. While this hasn't become totally visible it is underway and will become more evident with time. Bush/Powell/Rumsfeld apparently recognize this and are acting accordingly.

Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European politics has been dominated by France, England, Spain, and to a lesser extent Italy. By the 19th Century the power centers were Germany, France, and England and everyone else was an also ran. These countries and Western Europe in general have been dominated by socialism and socialist policies. They tout their democratic principles but in fact they pander to the masses and their economies are slowly sinking into non-competitiveness. The EU is their attempt to staunch the decline but ironically that is what is contributing to the sea change because the power is shifting to Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, and the Balkans. These are the people who have shed communism and are not likely to embrace socialism, which increases their competitiveness. As their economic strength increases so does their power and influence. France in particular is attempting to bully them into line but that isn't likely to work in the long run. The problem is so many people don't look into the future but look into the past and then back into the future expecting everything to remain the same. It won't and it isn't. France and Germany are locked into some social policies they can't change and the Bush policies are putting huge pressure on them. The internationalists think Bush is wrong because the French and Germans hate us -- that is old thinking because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant on the world stage. The reality is they no longer have financial wherewithal to maintain their socialist policies and field any significant fighting force. The truth of the matter is both of these countries have allowed their military to decline and are approaching obsolescence. The President and his advisors clearly see this so Bush doesn't care very much about these declining states and is focusing on the future power centers, which will have greater importance to the US in this century than France or Germany. Now everyone says Bush is wrong because he is stupid. First, I don't think he is wrong and secondly, the policy shift is probably coming from Rice, supported by Powell and Rumsfeld. Bush is simply executing on their recommendations, to call him stupid is to misinterpret what is going on. His strength is to listen to his advisors and act -- not to invent policy and pass it on to them.

Kerry continues to rant and rave and attempts to justify his lack of commitment on misinterpretations and distoritions. He is a hollow man -- devoid of any sincere belief in anything but himself. He is Clinton lite -- He will say and do whatever is necessary to gain and keep power. He has no strong belief in anything other than himself. His track record is horrible and amply demonstrates my assertions. He votes for the war and then votes against the funding. He justifies this on some sort of pseudo-moral ground but it looks to me like an effort to cause Bush to fail or at least to embarrass him. He had no compunction about jumping onboard with Jane Fonda and the VVAW. He betrayed his fellow soldiers for his personal power seeking not for any moral belief. He is a hollow man. The democrats do have some honorable men but unfortunately Kerry isn't one of them and Edwards brings new dimension to the term light weight. He has no government experience, no military experience, and no business experience -- what could possibly qualify him to be a Senator much less run the country?

Jihad and Strategic Asymetry

Actually I have been browsing through some of my essays on various subjects and came across this one that I wrote several months ago. It seems to be even more relevant now in light of some of Senator Kerry's remarks regarding terrorism and Iraq. It is increasingly apparent that we are in a war with few allies because so many of our "allies" are of the Neville Chamberlin variety in that they feel if they just let the jihadists beat on the US they will be safe. They seem to be oblivious to their own peril. Spain is gone -- done for -- they are in thrall to the Muslims and France isn't far behind. Certainly France will be dominated and in control of the Muslims within 5 years and possibly sooner. Germany isn't quite as threatened yet but their socialistic society is gradually emasculating them. In fact that is one of the errors in this essay because I credit both the Germans and the French of having armies capable of deployment. That is really not the situation because both countries have small armies armed with increasingly obsolete weapons. This in itself isn't an overly serious problem because the Muslims are using primitive weapons. The problem is the size of these armies and the fact they are trained to fight on a battlefield. If SecDef Rumsfeld has done else he has transformed our army into a fighting force capable of fighting an unconventional war using unconventional tactics, which I think falls into the category of Asymetric Strategy.

Strategic Asymetry

Rome was a mighty power, unrivaled at the time, and capable of crushing any and all opposition. They had over a million man Army that was highly trained and virtually invincible. They had a government run by a bureaucratic civil service, philosophers, artists, and a highly educated and civilized society. However, this Empire that stretched from Persia to Scotland was besieged from without by Barbarians hungry for the riches of Rome and within by greedy aristocrats willing to sell their votes, judges willing to sell their judgements, and bureaucrats expecting kickbacks or “tips” for doing the jobs for which they were paid. All of these things contributed in their way to the ultimate destruction of Rome but perhaps the greatest factor in that destruction was the complacency of the people. After all most of Roman society wasn’t really “Roman” at all but was a collection of merchants, artisans, and farmers spread across the Empire and all to a greater or lesser extent living what at the time was the “good life”. The problems and issues that ultimately brought down the Empire were viewed as being the responsibility of the government. The average Roman citizen was largely unaware of the dangers lurking on their borders that threatened their civilization or they were aware but too busy with their own lives to become involved, a situation not unlike what we are facing today.

Just as Rome was threatened by Barbarians, America and indeed all of Western Civilization is being besieged by Neo-Barbarians. There are some very serious issues and questions facing Western Civilization today and much like our Roman counterparts these are largely being ignored, either through ignorance, denial, or complacency. Of course while ancient Rome provides a historical parallel, the situation is not totally the same. The problems and issues threatening Western Civilization today are not rooted in a desire by the Neo-Barbarians to join Western Civilization but rather by a desire to destroy it. More importantly, many of the problems facing Western Civilization are internal and are rooted in conservative thinking masquerading as “liberal” or “progressive” thinking. An example is “Globalization” which is viewed negatively by the left because it is seen on the one hand as moving jobs overseas and on the other as exploiting poor nations.

At the strategic level Globalization represents what many liberal politicians have been striving for since the French Revolution and that is redistribution of wealth, but rather than redistributing the wealth of the rich, it actually is moving work across national borders and thus raising the average incomes of poorer nations. For some this movement of work to low labor nations is “exploitive” but this fails to recognize that if the same wages were paid to these workers that is paid to the high cost workers then the incentive to send the work to them would be lost and the result would be they would be even poorer, while the demand for labor would exceed the supply. This would drive up the costs and place the entire First World into a destructive inflationary spiral. Therefore, the critics of Globalization must understand that labor is simply a commodity and the purchaser will opt for the best price and the price is set by competition. However, as Globalization increases and nations become ever more interdependent, the result is a blurring of the Nation State and a homogenization of culture and this brings us to the Neo-Barbarians and the threat they represent to Western Civilization.

It is the very ubiquity of American Culture that is a major underlying factor in the greatest issue facing America today and that is “Global Terrorism”. This is widely viewed as an “American” problem by Europe and the United Nations but it is in fact a threat to Western Civilization. The United Nations has always been anti-American and largely impotent in any real crisis. Since the UN is largely made up of non-democratic countries run by dictators, many of whom are virulently anti-American and sympathetic to the terrorists they do not see the terrorists as any threat, other than to America. Therefore, there is no sense of urgency to confront what to them is an American problem. In fact many of them think it is about time that America got its “comeuppance.” What they don’t see is what would happen to them if America were to fall?

The Europeans are little better. Europe has always been focused on its past rather than focusing on its future, so they see terrorism as more of an annoyance than any real threat, because they continue to think in terms of Nation States rather than the individual or socio-political interests represented by the terrorists. The Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, think only in terms of their national interests rather than thinking globally. After all, they are wealthy have their own armies and are quite capable of meeting any aggression on the battlefield. What they fail to see or accept is that there is not going to be any battlefield – ever. The threat is within and aimed at destroying their economic power and will to resist with the objective of installing an Islamic society. What the UN and the Europeans either don’t understand or don’t accept is that the terrorists represent a new kind of threat that is rooted in ideology not in nation state politics. Besides what the Europeans seem to think is that the terrorists are really threatening America and therefore, it is essentially an American problem. What the Europeans fail to grasp is what would happen to them if America were to fall?

But this obsolete thinking is also quite prevalent in America as well, where our political representatives are reluctant to declare war on terrorists and terrorism, even though Thomas Jefferson gave us a historical precedent with his war on the Barbary Pirates. Instead we have a drive by our politicians to fight terrorists and to enlist the support and aid of the United Nations and Europe in a cause in which they really don’t believe involves them and may have been brought on by the sheer arrogance of America. The terrorists are viewed as a small group of fanatics bent on murder and destruction that can be contained and defeated through law enforcement.

The reality is we are already engaged in World War III and many, perhaps the majority, of the combatants are not even aware there is a war going on. Furthermore, this ignorance and complacency by so many individuals who see the current situation in terms of social unrest, political partisanship, and cultural conflicts, are virtually assuring this war will drag on for years, perhaps for a century or more and worse, their inability to see the stark reality of the situation is actually placing the outcome in doubt. Had you asked the average Roman Citizen if they thought the Barbarians would bring down mighty Rome, I am confident they would have laughed at the idea, just as so many people today feel no threat from these neo-barbarians called terrorists. Rome had mighty legions of well trained warriors, wealth, and the tactical ability to meet any threat anywhere, yet a raid here, a raid there coupled with high taxation and a reluctance to understand the actual threat and Rome was crippled and then fell.

The parallel is striking for like Rome we are protected by our technology, our laws, our education, our wealth, and most of all by our belief in fair play, multi-culturalism, and equality. When these Neo-Barbarian Terrorists call for the destruction of America it is viewed on the one hand as laughable hyperbolae and on the other as simply a reaction to the arrogance and ubiquity of American culture. Thus these terrorists are seen as misguided but with some legitimate complaints that can be discussed, negotiated, and eventually corrected. Of course this assumes these Neo-Barbarians share the same values and objectives as we do but this is a false assumption because it is not only our technology, our laws, our educational institutions, and our wealth that they wish to destroy, they wish to destroy anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their distorted religious system. This is a religious war of Islam against Christians, it is another Crusade, which they openly state but it is the Christians who refuse to see this for what it is. Furthermore, it is the very roots of our society and Western Civilization that they are using as weapons to destroy us. It is our very freedoms and morality that they are turning against us. Our situation calls for asymmetric thinking but what we are seeing is conventional thinking rooted in the idea of the Nation State and classic conflicts, but there may be another historical parallel that is closer to what is happening today.

Genghis Khan and his successor Tamerlane probably never had more than 250,000 troops at any one time but they conquered and controlled an Empire that was larger and more diverse than the Roman Empire. How did they do it? They did it through sheer terror. The Mongols were nomadic meaning they had no cities to attack, no fields to burn, no infrastructure to destroy and whose actual location could not be predicted with any certainty. To oppose the Mongols meant you either had to win or suffer fearful punishment. At first many opposed the Mongols but the Mongols didn’t fight according to the rules, instead they used unconventional tactics while their opponents were still fighting a largely infantry oriented war that relied on strongholds. Consequently, the battles were always fought on the terms set by the Mongols so the peoples being attacked were always on the defensive and rarely prepared. The various cities and principalities were not closely allied for any number of reasons leaving each one vulnerable. The Mongols used lightly armed cavalry and certainly didn’t fight hand-to-hand or toe-to-toe, their tactics were based on surprise attacks and sheer terror. To oppose the Mongols meant that you had to defend your stronghold while the Mongols waited outside of the walls until you surrendered or starved. When the Mongols finally emerged victorious they totally destroyed their enemies by slaughtering every living thing and leveling the cities they captured, leaving nothing standing. The result of this total devastation was stark terror and capitulation without resistance. After all, the Mongols were after loot and could usually be bought off. However, with the deaths of the two great Khans, the Mongol Empire fragmented and disappeared with only Kublai Khan remaining as the Emperor of China.

Certainly there are some obvious historical parallels here. How many terrorists are there worldwide? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Perhaps a million? No one really knows because like the Mongols they don’t have a central location, their infrastructure is largely virtual and what is tangible is carefully hidden. They are difficult to locate and cannot be attacked because they exist within the very societies they are trying to destroy. They attack on their terms and under the conditions of their choosing, consequently those being attacked are always on the defensive – after the initial attack. When they do emerge with any recognizable infrastructure they can be attacked and destroyed and Iraq and Afghanistan are examples. But they were not totally destroyed in these locations they simply faded back into the society and continued their hit and run tactics. Pinpricks in the side of the American Colossus but the tactic is to sap the will of the people to resist, to give up and to go away leaving them to continue their strategy, which is the total destruction of Western Civilization.

As much as this terrorist strategy may seen unattainable, even laughable, it is very real and quite possible. First, they can succeed in having the civilized countries ignore them or only give half-hearted resistance, leaving them to grow and expand their hidden infrastructure. Their announced target is to take over a nuclear power like Pakistan or India. Once this is accomplished they are in a position to literally destroy Washington D.C., London, New York, or any and all large cities. This devastation would pale in comparison to the damage done to Western Society as a whole. The economy of the world would be in a shambles and might possibly never recover, especially if all of the major cities were destroyed. Then there is the possibility of bio-terrorism masquerading under the name “Weapons of Mass Destruction” which we know exist but do not know precisely where they are. Consider a massive plague unleashed on the world, much like the Black Plague in the 1600’s, where 25% of the population of Europe died. Consider what this would do to the world economy and Western Civilization in general. This is the absolute objective of the radical Muslims – totally destruction of all Infidels, their society, their technology, and their hated democracies. They offer no compromise and no quarter is asked or given and it is necessary that all countries and societies realize this. What is needed to combat this threat is some asymmetrical thinking with non-traditional approaches and certainly a realization that we are dealing with a serious threat from a non-traditional enemy.

The first step in an asymmetrical strategy is accept the fact that we are not dealing with a nation state and therefore, a direct attack is not possible, although they can attack us at will and at a location of their choosing. Furthermore, they are not bound by any treaty or convention. This brings us to the first hurdle in developing an asymmetrical strategy and that is the Geneva Convention. As a nation we abide by the Geneva Convention but our enemy is not bound by this convention and so are free to murder, torture, kidnap, and generally take any action they choose. By insisting that we abide by the Geneva Convention we are in effect crippling our military. During the Revolutionary War the British had the most powerful army in the world. They marched onto the battlefield in bright red uniforms with perfect discipline. Unfortunately for them the Americans didn’t understand the rules and hid behind trees and bushes. The Americans lost almost every battle but eventually won anyway. This is very analogous to our current situation. We are being forced to fight according to “the rules” while the terrorists simply ignore them. This is not a good strategy. Our overall response has been tepid, but we have held people deemed a threat as enemy combatants, denied them constitutional protections, subjected them to psychological pressure, and mild physical discomfort. This rather mild response to these terrorists and murderers has been heavily criticized by many in the left wing, who view these actions as criminal and insist that we “act in a civilized manner and according to the rule of law”. Of course these same people criticize the terrorists as well but offer no solution regarding how to stop them, instead they focus on the Geneva Convention and the “rules”.

Then there is the money. Even terrorists need money for explosives, arms, travel, food, bribes, and the usual operating expenses. Certainly, there has been an effort to cut off the money supply but much of this is hidden as charities, educational foundations, or similar innocuous sounding groups. These should be closed down entirely or denied the ability to transfer funds out of this country to any country deemed a sponsor of terrorism. Furthermore, they should be denied the ability to transfer funds to any country that permits the transfer of funds to any country deemed a sponsor of terrorism. A violation of this law would result in all of their funds being confiscated and their officers imprisoned or deported. The informal banking system historically used by the Arab community should be outlawed in this country and subjected to the same fiduciary laws as any formal organization. Any transfer of funds out of this country by any individual should be restricted to no more than $5000 in a year.

The Islamic Community should be notified that hate speech, threats to America, and any encouragement or overt attempt to recruit suicide bombers or terrorists, will be viewed as sedition and the perpetrator subject to imprisonment. If these acts transpire within a Mosque, that Mosque will not only be closed, it will be razed. If these actions take place outside of the United States, the harboring state (e.g. Syria, Iran, etc.) will be notified that the US expects them to take equivalent action to what would be done in the US and if they fail to do so, the US reserves the right to act unilaterally, if the harboring state views this action as an act of war, then so be it.

The head of state for any nation state viewed as harboring or sponsoring terrorists and terrorism should be told that the US holds them personally responsible for any terrorist action taken against the United States. This means that the US will attempt to remove them via assassination or any other means available. The objective is to take the battle to the terrorists, to deny them safe harbor, to disrupt their communications, to kill as many as possible, and to give those who would harbor them the choice to live within the confines of law or die.

The real lesson is how the Mongol empire disintegrated. The mighty Mongolian Empire fragmented when the leaders died so what is needed is a direct attack on the leaders. This includes people like Yasser Arafat, the various Mullahs running Iran, the Dictator of Syria, as well as the leaders of the various terrorist organizations. History tells us that with these people out of the way their followers will fall to fighting among themselves because the root is power and money, not ideology. Hence our basic strategy should be one of personal attacks on the leaders after giving them ample notice to conform or die. If they fail to heed the warning then there should be strikes against them similar to the air strike against Quaddaffi in Libya. This is a strategy that is being used by Israel and while it has not caused the attacks to stop, the reality is they are not striking the real leaders who actually reside in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, not in Gaza.

Many of these recommendations are already in place but under severe attack by the left and many well intentioned people who see these as extreme measures and not in keeping with the American character. However, these are extreme times and if we fail to take extreme measures we may find ourselves in the same position that the ancient Romans did, a civilization in slow decline harassed by Neo-Barbarians, with a collapsing economy, and a government unable to protect us from the ravages of the barbarians.

The fall of America and the end of the Pax Americana would plunge the world into chaos. The Europeans would be unable to contain the terrorists and France in particular would be vulnerable to a takeover by the Muslim terrorists. Very quickly the world would decline into a series of feudal states dominated by war lords fighting over the bones of society. Just as all vestiges of civilization vanished with the fall of Rome so it would be with the fall of America. Gone would be the leading technology, the science, and most of all the infrastructure on which the world economy depends. We are deeply engaged in World War III --- a war that could easily drag on for a decade or more – and if we do not aggressively pursue these Neo-Barbarians using every means at our disposal, we run a very great risk of losing.

Opening Comments

Liberal Thinking
By
Puntocracy
It seems ironic that in the same batch of emails, I received the commencement speech made by Neal Boortz and a promotion piece from a consulting firm. The connection between these two is tenuous I admit but nevertheless there. These consultants are from some respectable Universities but a careful reading of their rather impressive resumes shows that they are “consultants”, have always been “consultants” and really don’t plan on doing anything beyond telling others how to work. And to me that forms a connection between the speech and the solicitation because Boortz is exhorting the graduates to go out into “the real world” and get a job. The implication being that they would start doing real work for which they would be compensated. Concurrently, he accuses the “gaggle of gowned academics” of leading sheltered non-productive (implied I admit) lives where they can wallow in emotional “caring” for those less ‘fortunate” than they are while infecting their students with this irrational thinking.

This position isn’t totally without merit because so many of the academics that staff the major universities have gone from kindergarten to PhD to professor with no stops in between to garner any real experience either in their field or in the brutal competitive environment of business life. In my opinion this lack of any practical experience does not qualify them to teach and certainly doesn’t qualify them to express opinions on business or the evils thereof. As Boortz says, the sheltered life of the average academic allows them the luxury of indulging in causes and caring about groups but what he implies but doesn’t say is that this non-competitive environment fosters their belief in egalitarianism, wealth redistribution, and the evils of capitalism (raw brutal competition). It is no accident that the academic community is not only the breeding ground for communism and socialism but it seems unable to grasp the realities of these ideas.

Consider that the Communist Experiment in Soviet Russia was an abysmal failure, that Communist Cuba is a failed communist society that has sunk into oppressive dictatorship, or that the socialist ideals of Scandinavia and Europe have left their countries sapped of their competitive will and economically weak. Nothing is said regarding these failures, instead they are excused on the basis of flawed leadership rather than a flawed concept. After all, it wasn’t communism that was bad it was Stalin and his successors just as it is the oppressive policies of the United States that have created chaos in Cuba, not communism and Castro. The whole idea of Socialism and Communism seems attractive since its objective is to care for everyone but in reality it is nothing less than wealth distribution, where the government picks the pockets of the rich to give to the poor. Of course the assumption is that the poor are poor for reasons totally out of their control but the reality is that only a small percentage fall into this category while the great majority are in that position due to personal choices. They have chosen to not go to school, not get an education, to have children prematurely, not to look for a job, or worst of all, find they can make more money by not working than by working. In effect a large percentage of the “poverty stricken” have been put into that position by the very people who are “caring” for them.

The “caring” group are in fact (unintentionally I’m sure) creating a permanent underclass because there are people in the world who are – lazy. These are people who would rather lay around in substandard (and subsidized) housing, living off of food stamps and welfare than go to work. Admittedly there are people who are in these situations through no fault of their own (well not totally but I’ll cut them some slack), but a great many are there because to them the alternative of acting as a responsible self-sustaining adult is worse. Most – if not all – of the support for wealth redistribution comes from people who are in non-competitive situations – universities primarily. I am reminded of a study that was done by one of my professors when I was an undergraduate. This study had to do with land reform in Mexico. It seems virtually every Mexican President since the French were driven out – (Santana, Juarez, Zapata, etc.) gave the land “back to the peasants”. The issue was if each President seized the land from the wealthy land owners why did the landowners end up with all of the land? The answer was there were too many peasants and too little land. When you gave each peon his own parcel of land it was too small to sustain him and his family. They were forced to sell their land back to the Patrons and the cycle renewed itself. Not quite the same as wealth redistribution so lets examine a point I heard made by a businessman. He stated that his business was worth roughly $12M and he employed 300 people directly and influenced the community even more. So if the government seized his business (think Lenin, communism, and socialism) and gave the proceeds to the population -- $100 to each person in the countryside then they would not have enough money to do anything effectively with it and 300 people would be put out of work. The same thing happened in the Roman Empire, the Emperor Septimius Severus taxed the rich so heavily that he reduced their total number and reduced his tax revenues thereby. So the paradox was the higher the taxes became the lower the revenues.

So what seems to be lacking today, in addition to the almost total absence of critical thinking, is any historical perspective. Even when confronted with irrefutable facts many of the internationalists and liberal thinkers seem to be in a state of denial. For example, with the rise of the Sandinistas in Central America the academic and liberal community in general applauded their ‘for the people” position and anti-America and anti-United Fruit stance. There was a general denial by the Democratic Congress and the liberal community that the Sandinistas were communists. There was great opposition to any support for the Contras because they were viewed as being “against the people”. Later when the Sandinistas admitted publicly that they were Marxists and intended to establish a Marxists government, there was general denial by US media and liberal community that ALL of the Sandinistas were Marxists. Of course the Reagan administration eventually forced a real election and the Sandinistas lost, but even then and continuing to this day, there is a general denial that the Sandinistas intended to establish a Marxist dictatorship. Such is the thinking of the liberal media and liberal community in general. In general the liberals tend to see the world as they want it to be not as it is.