War And The Futility Of Peace Protests

Once again the voices of the morally superior are raised against the military, against war, and in favor of world peace. These well meaning souls don’t seem to have a clue about war, the meaning of war, the impact of stopping a war, the strategic impact of one-sided peace initiatives, or anything beyond their conviction that the world would be peaceful if people just stopped fighting. These are the people who think war is immoral and unnatural because inter-species fighting is immoral. Of course one only has to look at the animal kingdom to determine that inter-species killing and fighting is very prevalent. In virtually every animal species the males fight over females, territory, and resources. In some cases whole packs of animals attack and kill similar packs over territory and resources. Chimpanzees in particular organize war parties and conduct what have all of the earmarks of raids on neighboring groups where killing is the objective. The obvious conclusion is that inter-species killing is commonplace in the animal kingdom but is not viewed as being immoral but simply as the way things are.

The Darwinists believe that man is descended from a common ancestor with apes and is simply another animal. To the Darwinists man is born, reproduces, and dies just like other animals. Man has no purpose, no objective beyond reproduction, and lives a life of futility, but as usual the Darwinists want to have it both ways. On the one hand they know we are just another member of the animal kingdom but being a superior animal we have a concept of morality and of right and wrong whereas animals do not. But if we are an animal like the apes, then why are our wars considered immoral by these people? Clearly the answer must be because we have some inner voice, a consciousness that tells us what is right and wrong. This of course sounds a great deal like a soul, but I digress.

The reality is that World Peace is a dream, much like the Alchemist’s dream of changing base metal into gold. There has never been a time in human history, going back to the Neolithic when man was not engaged in some form of combat. The idea that primitive man lived a life in harmony with nature and at peace with others is simply a dream that these peace advocates have created for themselves but that is all it is – a dream. One only has to look at primitive societies today to see that they engage in warfare that frequently results in fatalities. So the idea that man is by nature peaceful is simply erroneous and those people who mount these peace rallies whose aim is world peace are really indulging in an exercise in futility.

But suppose that these people who are anti-war and anti-military were to gain enough political power that they could put their philosophy of pacifism into practice? Well the history books are filled with examples where various kings and countries have tried to buy off aggressive threats, but it never works – it only delays the inevitable and those that tried to pay tribute always come out the loser. Machiavelli points out that wars cannot be avoided – only delayed. We have examples in our own time. The League of Nations was created as a way of avoiding war, of creating a forum where issues could be talked about and resolved without violence. Well the League did not prevent Mussolini from invading Ethiopia nor did it keep Hitler from invading Austria. The “peace at any price” lobby got control of the British government led by Neville Chamberlain who was so determined to avoid war that he almost singlehandedly brought on the second World War. The United Nations was created for the express purpose of providing a forum for the resolution of conflicts without violence. It was supposed to prevent wars. It has failed and failed miserably. It has not prevented any war, stopped any war, or even come close – it has turned into an ineffectual debating society.

The fact is that war seems to be the natural state of man, but not all men and not all the time. In reality – even in ancient times – only a small portion of the population is engaged in warfare, the majority of the population is law abiding citizens going about their daily lives. Of course these are also those people who are carried off in to slavery, slaughtered by score, and find themselves exploited by the conquerors or even by their own military dictators. So it is only this small portion of the general population – the warrior class – who fight the battles that determine the fate of people, states, nations, or empires. In fact the future of these and the fate of peoples has commonly hinged on one battle, fought by a relatively small number of men, in a small area over a period of hours. These are the battles that yield not just a new order of things but may determine the future of whole civilizations.

It was the battle of Thermopylae that allowed the Athenian city states to organize and fight off the Persians. It was the battle of Waterloo that brought down Napoleon. It was the battle of Hastings that ended the reign of Harold and the Anglo-Saxons and the list goes on and on. Therefore, while the majority of the population may not want war and may not actually fight in a war, their future has always been in the hands of a few warriors. While those who seek peace and protest war may be well intentioned the fact is that war has always existed and it is the warrior who creates and maintains the peace. A nation at peace cannot remain at peace without a strong military defense and any country that disarms is ultimately doomed to destruction and enslavement.

Conspiracy and Intelligence

It is worth noting that conspiracy theories abound just as they always have but recently they seem to have exploded into a full time activity for people who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. Actually as it turns out that isn’t precisely true because many of these conspiracy addicts are young people who were infected with there inability to think clearly while still in college. As we already know the University System is stuffed to the brim with “professors” like Ward Churchill who have never actually held a job, have never had to make a profit, who have never served in the military or served their country in any way. These are the dregs of the Flower Power generation, the men (?) who remained in college with a deferment hoping to outlast the Viet Nam War. Unfortunately that war dragged on and on in spite of their best efforts to derail it. Ultimately they succeeded with the help of the media and such illustrious patriots as Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, and Walter Cronkheit, but by the time the war was over they had their Phd’s in political science, sociology, black studies, are some similar subject, certainly not degrees in any challenging subject like mathematics because they had to maintain their grade point average in order to keep their deferments. So this gaggle of patriots found themselves in post-doctoral work and holding positions as professors at their universities because they had no skills to sell in the job market. The common thread with these university whack jobs is their universal hatred of the military, of capitalism, the government, and of course anything that even smells like competition.

However, it is their universal hatred of the military and mistrust of the government that they have conveyed to their students over the last 30 years. With the accessibility of the internet we now find these young people sitting at their desks surfing the internet while they slave for some capitalist pig, so they don’t see their failure to give a days work for a days pay as stealing, it is merely redistributing the wealth and this is their share. But these are the people who create these wild conspiracies out of thin air because they cannot accept that any poor, down trodden, non-American, would actually attack America unless manipulated by that cabal of arch criminals – the CIA. Therefore, Al Qaeda is either a totally made up organization or if real it is simply a shadow organization being used by the CIA, the Pentagon, and oil magnates to gain control of the Middle Eastern oil fields. So logically (in their clouded and immature minds) the destruction of the World Trade Center could not possibly have been accomplished by some ignorant goat herders from Saudi Arabia.

The educational background of these Saudi’s was obviously made up by the CIA because no educated person would be capable of such a crime. So while these ignorant peasants may have actually flown airplanes into the twin towers, the actual destruction was an implosion carried out by the federal government under the direction of the administration. The objective of this entire exercise was to trigger the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of seizing control of the oil wealth of Iraq. To these simple minds America is imperialist and Americans are evil grasping people bent on taking control of the world’s wealth. They see any reduction in taxes as “welfare” for the rich and any legislation aimed at giving unearned money to the “poor” as the redistribution of wealth and morally justified. The fact that most of these theorists do not earn a great deal, may in fact be unemployed, and certainly do not hold positions of any responsibility is ignored as other members of this lightly educated elite rush to their support.

To actually believe any of these conspiracy theories you must believe that the American Military is morally corrupt. That the senior military officers would commit crimes like the destruction of the Twin Towers without regard to the law or the morality of such an act. You must believe that the Pentagon was destroyed – not by an airplane being flown into it but by a missile launched by the military against itself. What happened to the missing plane and people is ignored because these theorists were never taught critical thinking in college. The Ward Churchill’s of the universities do not encourage questioning – just belief.

The real irony is that these same people carry signs and placards calling President Bush a stupid man and that he and his administration are hiding these vast secrets from the American people. First, off President Bush has been consistently “misunderestimated” by his critics. I am reminded of the Emperor Claudius who played the fool to survive and outlived all of his smarter relatives. President Bush uses these ignorant fools to great advantage and makes them seen even dumber than they are. Secondly, no administration since Washington’s has been able to keep a secret longer than it takes to call the newspaper. If any part of these conspiracies were even partially true it would be all over the New York Times and Washington Post. The reality is that it is our premier universities, the tenure system, and the force of groupthink in those classrooms that are our greatest threat today.

Blame America

Why do so many Americans seem so embarrassed about being American that they are compelled to apologize and hang their heads over the actions of the freest, most generous, and kindest nation ever to trod the earth? The French go into orgasmic elation over Napoleon and the “Glory” of France. Ignoring the pre-emptive wars initiated by Napoleon, the thousands of deaths, and the failure of France to ever recover its power after his fall. The Spanish reflect with pride on the reign of Phillip II, without regard to the rape of the New World or the Armada, which marked the beginning of the decline of Spain as a world power Even the Mongolians, leap to their feet and cheer at any mention of the “Great Khan (Genghis)”, who is noted for his barbarism as much as his generalship. But to mention George Washington or the founding fathers and we are immediately reminded that they owned slaves, they were hypocrites, and just a bunch of old white guys protecting themselves – hail academia!!

The fact is that since its founding, America has consistently been the freest and most welcoming nation in the world. While it took a while to free the slaves and even longer to accord the Negro the equal rights promised to all men, it was done and today everyone is assured of equal protection under the law. The United States has attempted to remain free of the entanglements of foreign treaties advised by George Washington, but modern technology has rendered this impossible. America has consistently been labeled a colonial power while systematically eliminating colonialism. It was America that wrested the Spanish Colonies of Cuba, Philippines, and the Caribbean Islands from Spain. These have all been freed but not necessarily for the better.

The real tests came with World War I, where the Germans were intent on dominating Europe and were ably supported by the Ottoman Empire and were well on their way when the United States entered the war on the side of the British. Had the United States maintained its isolationist policies Europe would be a far different place today. But this was the first taste Europe had of the awesome power of the United States. Not necessarily military power but industrial might. However, once the war was over, Europe returned to its old colonial ways and merrily began creating arbitrary countries and re-establishing their empires, while the US returned to its internal affairs, rendering the League of Nations totally impotent.

Following WW I Lenin overthrew the Czar and founded the USSR, a communist nation based on Marxism and glorified by the western intelligentsia. It is this same intelligentsia that is still attempting to establish the moral equivalence between the Soviet style Communism and the American Style Capitalism. The University of California Press in 2004 published titled “The American Gulag and then in 2005 published another book titled “The British Gulag”. The latter was written by a Harvard (no surprise there) Historian named Caroline Elkins. To equate these to Soviet Gulags is outrageous because the people in these prisons are there after being convicted in a court while those in the Soviet Prisons were commonly sent there without any trial or even informed of their crime.

During the 30’s and 40’s the Western Intellectuals couldn’t get enough of communism and George Bernard Shaw visited Russia in 1931 and wrote a panegyric upon his return – denying rumors at the time of mass starvation. In fact there was a systematic suppression of the growing evidence of mass starvation in Russia by the Western Press. The New York Times between 1921 and 1934 actively suppressed the truth about the Ukrainian famines and in 1932 won the Pulitzer Prize for a report that stated “any report of famine in the Ukraine was exaggerated or malignant propaganda, even thought the author (William Duranty) had been there and personally knew of the millions dying of starvation. These are the same people, the same intellectuals, and the same media that are still attempting to demonstrate the bankruptcy of capitalism and the evil empire of America.

Then came WW II which was the direct result of the failure of France and England to grasp their aspirations for territorial expansion and their crippling punishment of Germany. When it became obvious that the neither the French nor the British could withstand the onslaught of Germany, they turned to the United States of help. This actually marked the turning point in world history where the New World – the United States – became the world power – the hegemonic power – and Europe started its ongoing decline into irrelevance. But it was the awesome power of America – both military and industrial power – that ultimately defeated the Axis Powers of Japan, Germany, Italy, and the turncoat French.

The great tragedy in the aftermath of WW II turned out to be the creation of the United Nations. The League of Nations was thought to have failed because America failed to join so the belief was that if America joined the United Nations it was sure to succeed. It has been an unmitigated disaster for America. It has failed in every endeavor it has undertaken. It has not prevented any war, has not prevented or even alleviated poverty; it has become a highly corrupt and ineffectual organization whose only purpose seems to be to thwart America, while expecting America to pay for everything. Worse, the American Left as well as the leftists the world over seem to think that the UN has the moral authority over America so America should not act in its best interest without UN approval. The real irony is that the UN ignores every other country that acts unilaterally but castigates the US.

Another irony is that the political left continues to wail about the poverty in the US without actually understanding the realities. The reality is that being poor in America is a far cry from being poor anywhere else. In America 46% of the “poor” own their own homes, 72% have washing machines, 60% own microwave ovens, 92% have color TV’s, 76% have air conditioning, and 66% own one or more cars. Two thirds of poor households in America have two or more rooms per person and the average poor person in America has more living space than the average person in Paris. In spite of all of these advantages and contributions to the world, the American Intellectuals still view America as oppressive. However, I note they don’t move to Cuba, Russia, or even to North Korea so I guess America isn’t as oppressive as they maintain. Can you spell hypocrite?

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.

Strategery

• 
  I continue to be amazed how various pundits, politicians, reporters, and other military amateurs continue their relentless criticism of Secretary Rumsfeld and his conduct of the War on Terror. These people are no more qualified to critique the actions of the SecDef than I am and in fact being a student of military history, I might actually be more qualified. The latest attack(s) have been launched by the left through a number of Generals including Wesley Clark and Colin Powell. It is worth noting that both of these Generals are actually Pentagon Generals with little experience in Battle. Frontline Generals in the mode of Field Marshal Rommel and General Patton are hard to find today. In fairness General Powell did support and assist General Schwarzkopf in conducting the Gulf War. However, that was a classic war in the sense it was a war between nation states and conducted in the grand manner. We saw movements of air and sea forces, feints, flanking maneuvers, and everything conducted at the Division and Corps level. It was truly marvelous and perhaps the last war of this type ever to be fought. The War on Terror is much more intimate and the battles – such as they are – tend to be fought at the platoon or company level and sometimes at the Battalion level but for the most part the battles are intimate affairs. The generals who are being paraded about as experts are in reality not experts at all. They might be experts in classic warfare and capable of integrating air and sea with ground forces across a theater but that really isn’t what is going on today. We are being subjected to this avalanche of criticism by a group of arm chair wannabe generals and a gaggle of real generals who want to fight the only war they know how to fight, which unfortunately isn’t the current one. I offer some relevant quotes.
  
  I feel that retired generals should never miss an opportunity to remain silent concerning matters for which they are no longer responsible.
  General Norman Schwartzkopf
  
  Dead battles and dead generals are traps for the military mind
  Annonymous
  
  If men make war in slavish obedience to rules, they will fail.
  General Ulysses S. Grant
  
  So what we are being subjected to is a gaggle of people who do not have any responsibility for the conduct of or the outcome of, the current conflict. On the one hand we have civilians who choose to view those captured on the battle field, not as prisoners of war but as some sort of oppressed person alleged to have committed a crime. These people are being held illegally and in violation of the American Constitution. How the American Constitution applies to people who are not citizens is unclear to me but apparently not unclear to others. What crime should these people be charged with? What kind of evidence can be supplied? The illogic of this position seems lost because it would virtually guarantee that most if not all of those being held would have to be relesed for lack of evidence. Under this contorted thinking all of the soldiers captured in WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam would have been released and sent back to their units.
  
  But these people were soldiers and under the rules of war they could be held without charges until the end of hostilities, but those people being held by the US today are not soldiers. If they aren’t soldiers what are they? Some describe them as “insurgents”, “militants”, and “freedom fighters”, but these are not soldiers because they don’t wear uniforms. Under the rules of war people engaged in actions against one of the combatants who are captured without a uniform can be treated as spies or saboteurs and summarily executed. So the reality is that the United States is treating these people more humanely than they deserve under the rules of war.
  
  As serious as this problem is and as much as it acts as a distraction to the military, the more serious problem is the constant criticism of how the war is being conducted. The reality is there are actually two wars under way and perhaps more depending on your view point. There is the War of Terror, which is really a misnomer for a general conflict between radical Muslims and the West. This is actually a global conflict being waged by Muslims against Christendom. This war was declared by Osama bin Laden and its objective is world domination by Islam and the installation of Shar’ia Law world wide. This is a war against all infidels and no quarter is asked or given. The result of this policy is attacks of civilians and the torture and murder of any captives. This war is being confused with the Iraqi War and the War in Afghanistan.
  
  These Wars are actually theaters in the War on Terror. There objective is to focus the conflict into a more controllable situation. The War in Afghanistan was intended to deny Islam a permanent base of operations and a training ground for their military who do not wear uniforms and who are trained to use the civilian population as shields. Operations in this theater are continuing with mixed success due to the tribal nature of the natives and the inability of the government to establish control. Unfortunately, the Islamic world is primarily composed of tribes and clans who give only limited notice to any central government. Their primary loyalty is to Islam and this makes establishing any kind of permanent government in Afghanistan problematic. The near term objective appears to be to deny the militant Muslims a base of operations and this appears to be successful, but the fighting goes on. It is worth noting that the Afghans historically fight each other and only band together to fight an outsider.
  
  The reality is that even if Afghanistan was totally pacified and a stable government in place, it is unsuitable militarily as a base of operations for the larger global conflict. Strategically Iraq is much more desirable because it has access to the sea, a large educated population, and most importantly it provides a buffer between Iran and Syria, the primary bases for the radical terrorists. Iraq has historically acted as the very heart of Islam and Baghdad has historically been the capital of the Caliphate. Iraq has a strong military and once this is restored it will keep Iran and Syria off balance, but that brings us to the other war which is being viewed as the Iraqi Civil War.
  
  Whether or not this is truly a civil war is not quite clear, but regardless of what it is it certainly represents a strategic problem if not a failure. Although the Iraqi’s generally are better educated than most of the Islamic World there is still a large population of less educated people, who are under the sway of the various religious leaders. These leaders have their own militias which are bad enough but these leaders are themselves divided into Sunni and Shi’ia. This division has split Islam since the 7th Century and although the Sunni’s represent the minority they have historically dominated the Shi’ia.
  
  Although this fact is well known it appears that the depth of this division was misjudged so with the fall of Hussein, the Sunni’s lost control and the Shi’ia are out for revenge. So the Americans are caught in the middle and the result is a three way battle. The Sunni’s and Shi’ites are merrily killing each other along with any “Crusaders” they find. While the majority of the Iraqi population are not really committed to any of these conflicts they remain in the background for fear of reprisals. The result is what appears to be a Civil War where the Americans are attempting to keep the combatants apart. The result is that there are calls for more troops and criticisms about the conduct of the conflicts. This situation cannot be won with more troops, because the best that could be achieved would be a cessation of the murder and mayhem only until the Americans withdraw which would be the signal for a real civil war that would be won by Iran.
  
  Clearly the strategic objective of a stable and secular Iraq is not beyond our grasp but the success of that strategy rests squarely on our ability to train a RELIABLE army composed of troops loyal to the government and not the Islamic Leaders. This does not require more troops but it does require commitment to see it through.
  
  The time has long past for the West in general and the American public in particular to wake up to the fact that we are engaged in a global conflict, not of our making and not of our choice, but it real and we are involved. We need to step back and view this with a broader view and stop carping about individual issues and second guessing those people trying to fight it.

War Is Peace

The world is filled with people who predict the future, some of these represent themselves appropriately as Fortune Tellers, Psychics, and Tarot Readers but others – especially those in the intelligentsia – represent themselves as strategic thinkers or Futurists. These Futurists are either self-anointed or appointed by society and the media. In either case their public record of accuracy leaves much to be desired. Their prognostications are a mixture of dreams, wishes, and current projections usually mixed with a liberal dose of personal biases. Just because a person has many letters after his name or figures prominently in academic circles or the media doesn’t make them any more of a futurist than the Fortune Teller or the average man-on-the-street. This raises several questions: Should we listen to a "futurist"? Should we act on what one of these self-anointed know-it-all says ? What makes one of these prognosticators more knowledgeable than anyone else ? Remember, Chicken Little wasn't totally wrong. SOMETHING, did indeed fall on his head.

Many of these Futurists are media stars or academics and virtually all are known anti-war advocates, so their dire predictions of the future and urgent demands for total disarmament to gain world peace represents a desire not a future. They base their forecasts on their belief that mankind would not survive World War III because it would be an atomic holocaust. However, this represents their personal bias, not rational thinking. In the 50 years since the Atomic Bomb was first used, it has not been used by any one else. Yet wars have been on-going during that entire time. In fact there has never been a period in world history when there has been world peace. IF there were to be another world war and the current Islamic based terrorism certainly falls into that category, there is no guarantee atomics won’t be used and if they were, I believe mankind is resilient enough to survive it.

Ever since the invention of the Atomic Bomb the anti-war peace at any cost community has been struggling to convince the United States to disarm or at the least to destroy all of our atomic weapons. The rationale appears to be that if the US were to disarm there would be no need for other nations to develop or maintain their atomic weapons and world peace would prevail. What goes unsaid is that the US is an imperial power run by jingoistic politicians bent on world domination – sort of cultural death by forced democracy. The idea seems to be that the Cubans, North Koreans, Indians, etc. are all happy where they are and would be peaceful if the US would just disarm. The naiveté of that is self-evident to everyone but the anti-war activists.

Atomic technology is simple (by today’s standards) and it is unlikely that these arms will ever go away. But having them, having the capability to have them, and using them are very different things. Weapons technology is REPLACED never ABANDONED. Remember, the invention of the crossbow doomed the mounted armored knight. This weapon, even today is formidable. At the time society and the church railed against the use of this "ungentlemanly" way of killing people. They did it anyway and the mounted Knight was doomed. Atomic weapons will be abandoned when there is a better weapon available.

This brings us to the current world situation specifically North Korea and Iran. Both of these countries are determined to become nuclear powers and both Russia and the EU are more than willing to help them. These governments want the revenues and jobs that come with providing this technology to these rogue states. Besides, they are not the ones at risk. It is highly unlikely that either Iran or North Korea would mount a pre-emptive strike on Europe or Russia while it is much more likely that if either of these countries would actually employ their atomic weapons it would be against the US and Israel. The destruction of Israel would not be viewed as any great loss by either the Europeans or Russia since both are highly anti-Semitic and would see this as a positive. A damaged or weakened US would bring these countries back on the stage as world powers both militarily and economically.

These are realities that academia and the political left simply ignore in their belief that the great threat to world peace is the United States and our military. These are people who want to belief and feel rather than think. They reject any fact or critical thinking that would conclude that a strong military is the path to peace and that sometimes war or the threat of war brings peace.

Revolutions and the French

American history in general is not especially interesting since it is mostly composed of political struggles between politicians with some moral relevancies here and there. Nevertheless, in reading the papers of some of the founding fathers, it is fascinating to see their differences, their likes and dislikes, but most interestingly – how they perceived current events. This is especially true of the French Revolution, which today is viewed as an unnecessary bloodbath conducted by extremists in the name of “democracy”. To many people – even today – the French Revolution was inspired by the American Revolution, but the only similarities are in the term “Revolution” and beyond that there is no similarity at all.

It is fascinating to read the papers of the Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson during this period and to see how the Americans viewed the French Revolution. Jefferson, like Madison and others saw the French Revolution as a natural result of the American Revolution. The French citizens were simply exercising their right of self-determination. But Jefferson was a Francophile and continued to make excuses for the French even as their excesses grew. He ignored the real meaning of their call for Liberte`, Fraternite`, Egalite` even after Citizen Genet arrived on the scene and Americans began calling themselves “Citizen” in the French Style. He ignored Genet's attempts to undermine the Administration until they became so extreme that even he could no longer ignore them. Eventually even Jefferson had to accept the fact that Robespierre, Danton, and Marat were out of control and were conducting an unnecessary bloodbath. But to criticize the French would have been impolitic since there was such support for the French among the American public. Plus Hamilton and others were highly critical of the French Directory and how they were conducting their affairs.

We tend to forget that the American Revolution was actually just one theater in a global war that had been going on prior to 1776 and raged off and on throughout the period and only ended with the exile of Napoleon. In fact this European War had been going on during the reign of Louis XV and then under Louis XVI as well. Wars cost money and this one was no exception and France was essentially bankrupt. Louis XVI was inept at almost everything and he had simply continued the policies of his father and grandfather without regard to the cost. Consequently the population was restive at first and then moved to rebellion. Whether or not the American Revolution had any influence on this is arguable but some certainly saw that it was possible to throw off the yoke of monarchy. Nevertheless, the country of France was effectively bankrupt and turned to America for the money owed to them by the American Government. Jefferson felt that a failure to support the French Revolutionaries would be hypocritical since they were attempting the same rebellion that the Americans had just successfully accomplished. Besides the French were still enemies of Britain and Jefferson essentially saw Britain as the arch enemy of America. The result was Jefferson recognized the money owed to the French as a legitimate debt owed to a legitimate government while Hamilton saw this as an attempt by an illegitimate group of thugs to get the money they needed to maintain their control over what was clearly a bloody purge.

It is worth noting that during this entire contretemps Washington remained above the fray. Generally his attitude was “the French be damned”. He never forgot nor forgave the way the French and British aristocracy treated him. He felt the Europeans got what they deserved and that the future of America did not lie across the Atlantic but to the West. His policy was always to grow America, to exploit our resources, and to let the Europeans stew in their own juice. This essentially became the cornerstone of American Foreign Policy up to the First World War when America became a world power that overshadowed the Europeans.

The fact is that during this entire period – in fact from the fall of the Roman Empire – the French and English were at war with each other and even today they detest each other. The French have never been able to establish a stable government and the French Revolution was really just another example of that inability. Once Louis XVI was executed and the son Louis XVII disappeared (or died your choice) the rise of a military dictator was inevitable. Napoleon just happened to seize the moment and ultimately the crown as well. However, unlike Washington, Napoleon was unable to relinquish power and establish a democratic government. Instead he succumbed to the intoxication of power and launched France on wars of conquest and thus betraying the revolution.

Washington set an example that has not been duplicated since. Instead we see revolutionaries like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Mao Tse Tung, seizing power for themself and failing to give up their power in favor of a democratic government. Only Washington was able to give up total power and step off of the world stage. This has set an example for the world and this example is repeated with every change in administration. Today the French and most European countries are democratic and are able to change administrations without killing each other, but they owe America and George Washington a debt of gratitude. The American Revolution stands unique in history and the French Revolution was typical of all other revolutions where the outs over threw in the ins and then proceeded to continue business as usual.

Observations and Historical Perspectives

A friend recently sent me an article dealing with recent attacks on SecDef Rumsfeld that was filled with references citing the many times that military failures were blamed on civilians.
I'm not exactly sure what the point of this article was. Although it was stuffed with facts and parallels (some strained to be sure) it never seems to come to any conclusion. Furthermore, the apparent conclusion is that military failures are frequently and wrongfully blamed on civilian leadership and the various facts and parallels are intended to bear out this point (I think). Carl Von Clausewitz stated quite clearly in his military text "On War" that war is simply an extension of diplomacy and its objective is to return to a diplomatic solution. Therefore, the idea of "winning" and "losing" a war is really a simplistic view of the situation. Secondly, the Roman Empire insisted that in order to be a "Consul" or "Proconsul" the man must have had military experience. There was no such thing as purely civilian leadership. Personally I think there is merit in this position. But to return to the article(s), the assumption throughout seems to be that civilians are blamed for the general incompetence of the civilian leadership when in fact the failures are almost always military.

Personally, I think this conclusion is over-reaching the facts, because the fact is that sometimes the military is wrong and sometimes the civilians are wrong. I thought Robert McNamarra was (and still is) a total nincompoop who was put in place by JFK solely on the basis of his Eastern Aristocratic background. He and his "brain trust" screwed up Ford and then proceeded to screw up the Viet Nam War -- ably abetted by the President, the media, and a whole host of other civilians. Admittedly this was not the military's finest hour but how quickly we seem to forget that it was the administration and McNamarra who refused to bomb the dikes, to bomb Hanoi flat, to attack the Viet Cong in their hideouts in other countries. The military was hamstrung -- the same was true in Korea although the rationale there was on firmer ground.

Historically, the military has always trained and prepared to fight the last war not the future wars. Rumsfeld has changed that by simply forcing the military to face the fact that the last Gulf War was the last war to be fought using classical military strategy. He is forcing the military to change and in doing a great job. The distinctions between Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines is blurring very fast as Rumsfeld creates task forces made up of joint units designed to solve specific problems using strategies that are unconventional and focused on the problem at hand. In this case the military is wrong and the civilians are right.

The same could be said for Lincoln in the Civil War. The Union Generals were political and generally inept but both sides were locked into military strategies based on the Napoleonic Wars, which were not suitable for the task at hand, the weapons available, and resulted in appalling casualties. The Revolutionary War was fought by a brilliant General Washington aided by some equally brilliant officers leading a woefully inept and ill equipped army. He could have done better with more Congressional support but there wasn't any revenue and only a skeleton government so to blame Congress is wrong but to blame Washington for failing to win battles is idiotic.

So I'm not sure what the purpose of the article was and the sources were truly suspect since all of them could be construed as having an agenda. There is no doubt in my mind but that the media and the left wing want Rumsfeld out because he is winning and proving them wrong. I think there are conservative elements in the military who want to preserve their traditions and place them before winning -- remember Billy Mitchell -- same thing here.

Gray Becomes The World

How I envy the young, not for their lithe bodies and tight skin but for their clarity. For the young the world is black and white where everything is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral with very little in between. Decisions come swiftly and with certainty but with the onset of maturity tinges of gray begin to creep in. Decisions begin to take longer and when made they lack that air of absoluteness that once was present. Gradually – oh so gradually – gray spreads and the black and white view of the world fades until nothing seems to be absolutely right or wrong, totally moral or completely immoral, and decisions come slowly, if at all, and when they do come, they are filled with uncertainty and ambiguity.

Increasingly I observe via the television this clarity of vision that I seem to have lost. Yet I see people rendering decisions that I think would have confounded Solomon and certainly have confounded me. Perhaps the most visible today is the situation with Teri Schaivo. There are people who are vehemently supporting both sides, apparently comfortable in making decisions for others without actually having any facts on which to base their decision. Personally I don’t know what to think and can only thank God that I do not have to make the decision whether she should live or die. Who is right? The husband maintains he is carrying out her wishes while the parents plead for the right to care for her. The husband refuses to divorce her while living outside of his marriage vows – why? The parents are determined to keep her alive but perhaps only as a living vegetable regardless of what her wishes might have been. How do I know who is right? The courts have stayed within the framework of the law and have refused to get involved in the moral aspect of the case. Perhaps that is wise but then perhaps it is the coward’s way. Of course I have an opinion – like everyone else – but it is an OPINION and not based on anything other than my own individual moral compass.

Then we have the situation with that Man-boy Michael Jackson. Everyone seems to have made up their mind regarding whether or not he is a child molester. How can anyone be absolutely sure of his guilt or innocence? Clearly he is someone in desperate need of psychiatric help because he appears to my untrained eye, to be a case of arrested development. I think he reacts like a ten year old boy, who likes to hang out with his friends and do the things that ten year old boys do, and that includes all of the titillating aspects of sex and sexual exploration. This is certainly does not condone any behavior that would fall into the category of molestation because he is in fact a 40 year old man. But I’m not trained and I wasn’t there and the accusers all seem to have an agenda. So how can anyone be so certain that he is guilty or innocent? There is no doubt that he acted inappropriately for an adult but then being a physical adult doesn’t make him a mental adult. So his actions have to be examined in terms of his mental development, which is far from normal -- and any decision regarding him and his conduct falls into the realm of gray and uncertainty – at least for me.

But there are many more issues where people seem to have a clarity that I lack and among these is abortion. This is a matter that moves people to violence – sort of – kill a commie for Christ – while purporting to protect the unborn from violence. The nub of this argument really lies with some philosophical issues that have plagued mankind for years. To some the moment the sperm enters the egg life begins so any deliberate violence to the egg is tantamount to murder, except for those who believe life begins with the first breath. To the atheist, the soul doesn’t exist so when life begins is open to interpretation—presumably with the first breath otherwise abortion would be murder. For others, life begins with the entry of the soul into the body but the problem seems to be – when does this happen? Some think it happens at the time of conception so abortion is murder – pure and simple, but others think the soul enters the body with the first breath so abortion is purely a clinical matter. Others take the view that the decision to abort is purely the woman’s decision and is independent of these philosophical issues, which sidesteps the issue of what constitutes murder. Personally, I don’t know and I am puzzled by how so many people are convinced they know the answer, when these are questions that have been debated for centuries. From my perspective these people are entitled to their opinion but that is all it is – their opinion. To foist their opinion onto the rest of us is wrong. This does not mean I am pro-abortion or pro-life, it simply means I don’t know. I do think the decision to abort is a very personal one and not one that any woman makes lightly. So to me this is another one of those areas where everything is gray and unlike so many others, I don’t this issue with any clarity.

Then we have the issue of war – not just the current Iraqi affair, but war in general. I see people of various ages – some old enough to know better – marching around with anti-war slogans. Many of these people are simply anti-Bush agitators, but some are sincere in their feelings that war is wrong. This issue was addressed by Aristophanes in his play Lysistrada hundreds of years before Christ. I think everyone would be willing to concede that war is a bad thing but at no time in history of man has there been a period of total peace. Peace – such as it has been – has been maintained by the force of arms and those countries that were weak or undefended were exploited at best and destroyed at worst. There is no doubt that war is bad but is it immoral? Is it morally wrong to use force to defend those who cannot defend themselves from those who would destroy them? In effect these anti-war activists are saying that war is morally wrong and that it is better to allow the weak to be destroyed by the strong because this is the Darwinian way and to intervene in this natural process is immoral. To make it more relevant essentially Hussein had every right to murder and pillage his people because to intervene as President Bush did, is morally wrong because it interfered with the natural process. This same argument could be mounted to defend Hitler, because to go to war to stop murder is wrong.

This argument then escalates to weapons – because weapons kill people and the atomic bomb is the most potent weapon for mass killing and therefore, it should be outlawed. Of course, I don’t think in the history of mankind has their ever been an example of a weapon murdering someone unless the weapon was employed by a human hand. Weapons are bad, guns are bad, but so are people. In fact, every society has outlawed bad behavior and has punished those who violate the rules – these are called criminals. Criminals act immorally but to disarm the populace is to place them at risk to those individuals who are willing to use force to take what they want. So who is the most immoral – the person who disarms the people so they can’t defend themselves or the person who is willing to take advantage of those unable to defend themselves?

So as I stated at the outset – how I envy the young their clarity and certainty because as you age, things get very gray and certainty about anything comes in very small doses.

Rather-Less

So the media is falling all over itself bidding Dan Rather a fond farewell and remembering all of his contributions to journalism. Pardon me if I don't join in this effusive praise-fest. I am old enough to remember how the media acted during the Viet Nam War. Maybe I am over sensitive to the one-sided reporting and the distortions that passed for news. This doesn't excuse the disgraceful conduct of the administration, but it is worth remembering that it was Jack Kennedy that got us into that mess, that it was Harry Truman who formulated the concept of a “limited war”, and that it was Lyndon Johnson who mismanaged the conflict. During this entire period Cronkite, Rather, Jennings, and the rest of the media spun the news as negatively as possible and eventually laying the blame at the doorstep of Nixon -- who was evil personified. After all they couldn't pin responsibility on a democrat or do anything to tarnish the image of the deified Jack Kennedy. The entire concept of a “limited war” is ludicrous just as establishing “world peace” is a goal that is equivalent to solving “world hunger”. The media – especially the liberal media (is that a redundancy?) devote a great deal of energy demonstrating how evil capitalism is, how wrong big business is, and that Americans simply don't understand our rightful place is to stand hat in hand while the international community picks our pockets. All of this spin started with Viet Nam when the media decided they got better ratings attacking the military and the country rather than defending it.

Once they got away with that, they came to realize that there was no one there to oppose them and that they could report the news in such a way they could influence events and public opinion. From that point the news became less and less reliable and the various pundits gradually turned the networks into propaganda machines. I stopped watching CBS following Dan Rather’s attack on George H W Bush who was Vice President of the United States. He was appallingly disrespectful and Bush made mincemeat out of him because Bush new what Rather had in mind and insisted on the interview being live. That prevented Rather from spinning the interview and Bush came off looking like a gentleman and Rather came off looking like a democratic attack dog – which as it turns out – he was! I never watched CBS again and eventually stopped watching all of the networks because of their very obvious liberal bias. So goodbye Dan Rather – and hopefully you will have the grace to shut up unlike your colleague Walter Cronkite.

And this brings me to the United Nations. Talk about a totally worthless organization – this is an organization that has not successfully accomplished anything. It is dominated by Thugocracies and staffed by incredibly corrupt politicians but since most of these “diplomats” are relatives of the Thugs why does it surprise anyone that they are corrupt? That is the way they operate in their countries so their place in the UN simply gives them access to more opportunities to steal and as it turns out – rape as well. Of course all of this is done using American money while spending most of their time attacking the United States. Kofi Annan is only the tip of the iceberg and the appointment of Bolton as the new Ambassador to the UN should send a message to the UN that they had better get their act together because Bush won’t tolerate business as usual and Bolton has already stated that the UN is useless.

Has anyone noticed that perhaps President Bush is right and that his speeches and actions are having an impact worldwide? Even the Europeans are reluctantly beginning to tone down their criticisms. They haven’t reached the point of actually acknowledging that his foreign policy is working but it is hard to ignore the facts. There are demonstrations in Kuwait demanding more freedom and suffrage for women, demonstrations for free elections in Lebanon, free elections scheduled in Egypt with actual opponents, elections – albeit small ones – in Saudi Arabia. He has forced North Korean into the background and off of the front pages and delivered a message that they are a problem in the far east and that the Asian countries must deal with them not the US. He has successfully conducted free elections in Iraq and it is clear that situation is slowly coming under control. So with what appears to be vindication on the international stage, the media is turning to domestic policy and attempting to roast Bush on that.

Well he is certainly more vulnerable on the domestic side, but then there are a lot of things that never seem to get reported. For example – why is social security in trouble? Millions of Americans have been paying into it for a lot of years. So what happened to the money that was placed in that trust fund? Well if you or I had handled a trust fund placed in our care like the Congress handled the trust fund put in their care, we would be in jail. The Congress simply spent the money. In effect they took the money and left IOU’s so now all of the money is gone and all that is left is – well zip – nothing is left but IOU’s and a lot of hand wringing. The time has come to pay the piper and the Congress is split – with the Democrats – who merrily spent most of the money saying there isn’t a problem. They are especially opposed to “privatization”, which has never actually been described so no one really knows what that means. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the result will be less money for Congress to spend. Worse, if the people are allowed to keep part of their money in private investments, no only does Congress not get the money upfront, they can't get their hands on it after death because those funds become part of the person’s estate. Currently, many people die before being able to file for benefits and ALL of their money stays in the trust fund and thus is money that Congress can spend elsewhere.

So where does Congress spend all of this money? There is constant whining and complaining about not enough money for education, for roads, for health, etc. Hmmm – it seems to me Congress just sent a billion to Asia for Tsunami aid. Let me see, exactly how much money did those countries send to the US when Florida got leveled by Hurricanes? What about the millions in aid that has gone to Palestine? Aren’t they the ones who are murdering innocent people in Israel? How about the millions that are going into aid to Africa to fight AIDS? In fact how about the millions going to fight AIDs in general. Isn’t AID’s the result of poor decision making? My point is that Congress has pillaged Social Security and the Treasury to send money overseas to support causes and governments that do nothing for the US, while denying money and support to situations in the US that desperately need attention. President Bush is being attacked for his spending policies but no one seems to care -- the media in particular -- that the President can't spend ten cents -- Congress controls the purse strings and all the President can do is recommend what he thinks needs to be funded, but it is Congress that has the final say so if the President's deficit spending plans are bad -- all Congress has to do is not fund them.

Where is the media on these issues? Has anyone ever heard any person in the media call for an end of support for foreign aid or support for the UN? There is a constant hue and cry about the budget but the congressional response is more taxes not less spending -- and they control both -- so why don't they just cut back and tell the President to stuff it? Has anyone heard any of the politicians call for an end to the rape of the “trust fund” called Social Security? I didn't think so. The new mantra is we need a “usage tax”, which is another name for a national sales tax. Of course it is being touted as a replacement for the federal income tax, but the income tax would be phased out while the sales tax would be immediate. Of course the track record of Congress is that once a tax is in place it never goes away so we can look forward to the income tax AND a sales tax. We need tax reform but we need Congressional reform more.

A Salute to History

As most students understand it today, history is just a bunch of old white guys who have subjugated women, enslaved “people of color”, and generally raped the environment without contributing very much to the world. We are led to believe that the entire concept of “Western Civilization” is nothing short of a manifestation of the arrogance and general ignorance of the (American) white males who refuse to recognize the major contributions of other countries and cultures. Of course anyone who has ever studied history is well aware of the falsity of that proposition so you wonder exactly what students are being taught. Then I remember that Stephen Ambrose – the alleged pre-eminent historian of the Twentieth Century admitted that he was taught a distorted view of American History and then (knowingly) continued to teach these distortions to his students throughout his career. To his credit he admitted this prior to his death and even attempted to rectify some of his more egregious comments in his last book, but even there he was unable to give up some of these distortions because left wing liberals cannot actually attribute anything noble or good to any white man.

For example Ambrose simply cannot get by the fact that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and most of the founding fathers were slave owners. Now this is a historical fact but is that all there is to these men? Should the very carefully chosen facts selected by those who purport to be “historians” define these men? Perhaps the most egregious distortion is from Ambrose who acknowledges Jefferson’s authorship of the Declaration Of Independence but then dismisses Jefferson as a hypocrite for owning slaves. What is totally ignored are the writings and actions of Jefferson in opposition to slavery. He was opposed to it and attempted to have it ended but in the end he came to realize that it was too critical to the economy of the Southern States. Of course none of this is covered by Ambrose, which seems to be typical of what passes for scholarship today.

But what about the Indians? Of course they don’t even exist anymore because they have been replaced by Native Americans, which is another politically correct but factually inaccurate description. The Indians are not native to America and clearly are simply immigrants, possibly from Asia or South America, but being first doesn’t make them “Native”. But this is simply nitpicking and it really doesn’t matter if they are called Indians, Native Americans, or Ewoks because the focus for the historians is how the white man destroyed their culture in what is nothing short of genocide. These are very serious accusations if true but then some historians refer to this time period as the “Indian Wars”. A war is considerably different than genocide because in a war their are winners and losers and deaths on both sides. Genocide is a deliberate attempt to wipe out a culture and kill a specific group of largely defenseless people – e;g; the Jews.

The Indians allied themselves with the French, the British, and even the Americans for various reasons including pay. The Indians frequently came out on top and the Yaqui Apaches have never signed a peace treaty and are technically still at war with the United States. This is not to say that in the end the Americans treated the Indians fairly, because they didn’t but unfair treatment is a far cry from genocide. This of course brings us to Wounded Knee, which is not the greatest moment in American Military History. However, shouldn’t that be placed into perspective? Weren’t the Indians at war with the US? Hadn’t the Indians attacked the Americans and were in fact fleeing from the soldiers? In fact, when viewed from a military perspective the Indians were incapable of winning. There is no doubt that the Plains Indians were some of the finest cavalry in the world – possibly second only to the Mongols but in spite of Hollywood the actual Indian War was largely an infantry affair fought between a disciplined Army with central command and an a fragmented collection of warriors. But even so, the real issue was logistics and the Indians lost because of that. The Army had permanent bases supported by a logistical infrastructure while the Indians were nomadic and without a logistical base. Wounded Knee is a vivid example of this because the warriors that were fighting the Army were hampered by their dependents. The soldiers moved alone but the Indians had to take everything with them. Food was always an issue because they were nomadic and couldn’t stay in one spot long enough to grow crops. So while Wounded Knee wasn’t glorious in some ways it was inevitable due to the nature of the Indian’s logistical structure.

But in their drive to dismiss Western Civilization as anything meaningful, these new historians must show how other cultures are equivalent and have made equal or even greater contributions to the world. Of course foremost among these is China, because after all the Chinese invented practically everything. There is no doubt that the Chinese had a very advanced culture far in advance of the West but precisely what did they do with it? Was there any great influx of Chinese explorers into Europe, Africa, or the new World? The fact is that if it hadn’t been for Marco Polo most of the discoveries of the Chinese would have remained in China.

The Japanese have historically been xenophobic and entered the community of nations only because the United States insisted. To this day the Japanese are very insular and while they build a great many things the list of their inventions is very short and many of their inventions are in fact simply enhancements of inventions by others. Essentially we can dismiss Asia as a source of anything that underpins Western Civilization even though they may have thought of it first. So we can move on to Africa – well once you exclude Egypt there isn’t anything there. However the Egyptians did contribute a great deal to our culture and form one of the roots to Western Civilization or did they? Precisely what have we inherited from the Egyptians – ancient or otherwise? Well mostly history and a lot of interesting artifacts but very little in the form or culture, organization, or government. Mostly the Egyptians fed the west – mostly Romans – who were the actual foundation of Western Civilization. So we can conclude that Civilization as we know it is mostly Western in origin and while others may have invented things the actual builders were in the West and not in the East or in Africa and this brings us back to the contemporary view of history.

It is worth noting that the protagonist in 1984 was charged with rewriting history, which at the time the book was published seemed ludicrous but that is precisely what academia and Hollywood are doing to day. We are being treated to the trashing of the heroes of western culture and the aggrandizement of the counter-culture heroes. Thus Che Guevara becomes a hero rather than the murdering terrorist that he was. The Sandinistas were not Marxists, even though they said they were (what did they know? They were simple peasants) but revolutionaries trying to throw off the yoke of America. Capitalism is bad and exploitive because it places responsibility on the individual so this makes America bad. Marxism and socialism is good because it ensures that everyone shares equally. Of course, these same people ignore George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” just as they ignore “1984”. The fact is Academia today is infested with a gaggle of PhD’s who have never had a job, people who have never had to pay their way or make a profit. These Professors have gone from kindergarten to PhD with out any break for a taste of reality. Stephen Ambrose was just the tip of the iceberg. At least he acknowledged before he died that he had knowingly and deliberately distorted the history that he taught in order to make some left leaning political points. Do you think that pseudo-historian and fake Indian Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado will ever admit that he is an left leaning ignoramus who is actually distorting facts? Not likely – so Academia like the New York Times is no longer credible and any ‘facts” coming from these sources should be taken with a very large grain of salt if not ignored altogether.

A Strategic Glimpse at Ukraine

The situation in Ukraine is creating some consternation among the deep thinkers in the Think Tanks and while I think there is some cause for concern I think that at least some of this consternation is not only misplaced, I think it includes at least some underlying view that America is imperialistic. However, while it is tempting to beat that tired old liberal drum once again, it is probably more productive to take a strategic view.

The underlying attitude seems to be that the Ukraine is a buffer state between Russia and the west with the west being NATO. Many of the former Soviet States have already joined NATO and others may join in the future – possibly Ukraine. With NATO sitting on its western border, Russia would then be defenseless and surrounded by American spheres of influence to the west and south. This is an untenable position for Russia so they cannot allow Ukraine to move into a western orientation – i.e. join NATO, but is this conclusion valid?

Certainly, Russia would like to restore its former power and once again become a power capable of balancing American power. The Ukraine is vital to that strategy for two reasons. First it was the intellectual capital of the USSR and secondly, it also was the breadbasket. It also formed a buffer state between central Russia and the West and it is this fact that seems uppermost in the minds of the think tankers, but is it relevant?

I think the idea of buffer states is a little quaint and has little relevance in modern warfare. This idea is predicated on the idea that wars of the future will be fought between nation states using vast armies of men moving en masse as they have in the past. Personally, I think the Gulf War was the last of the wars of big battalions. We have aircraft capable of flying nonstop to anywhere in the world and returning. We have missiles that can strike at will anywhere in the world – as do the Russians. So what role does a buffer state have in that type of scenario? Increasingly battles are fought with special forces at strategic points, not using massed divisions sweeping across territories like the Mongol Horde. At one time irregulars were viewed as poor soldiers not capable of inflicting great harm or overcoming organized opposition, but this is no longer true.

In Viet Nam the special forces – or irregulars played an important role and began to change the face of warfare. Since that time these irregulars have become mainstream and SecDef Rumsfeld is remaking the American Army with these special forces as the core. This is being copied by military worldwide. The current battles in Iraq are largely being fought with irregulars and certainly the major threat today is the Islamic radicals who are an irregular force. Therefore, the idea that Russia needs and must have a buffer state between its borders and NATO doesn’t seem to be a crucial or strategic issue, but a political and economic one.

The real strategic threat to Russia – if there is one – is the EU. Some of the former Soviet Republics have joined the EU and if the Ukraine were to look westward the EU would represent a greater threat than NATO. While it is true NATO is a military organization it was originally created as a counterweight to the USSR. Since that no longer exists, NATO has much less relevance and it increasingly viewed as a sort of central police force. The real threat to Russia is from the EU and the economic power it represents. If the Ukraine orients itself to the West and Europe then economic ties to the EU are unavoidable. Russia is struggling to throw off the shackles of communism but as anyone can see they are having a difficult time. Putin is increasingly becoming a dictator – a virtual Tsar in the making. The economy of the country is in a shambles through corruption and the legal system continues to be just as corrupt as it was under the communists. With the Ukraine under the influence of Russia then the Ukraine does indeed become a buffer state but not necessarily a military one but an economic one. If the Ukraine forges ties with the EU then capitalism – or at least what passes for capitalism in Europe – will bring greater economic growth to Ukraine as well as social and political order. This event will not be wasted on the Russians and thus the Russian government could become unstable – meaning that the reformed communists and their criminal allies could be in jeopardy.

So while the deep thinkers are not totally wrong in their geo-political thinking I think the real threat to Russia is more pragmatic and rooted not in military issues but economic ones.

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?