It is too early to make a historical judgment on whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq. (I am not discussing the moral right or wrong, but the policy right or wrong.) That will come with time. We won't know whether our national security and foreign policy were enhanced or degraded by our invasion, over the long term. It will depend on whether Iraq comes out of the current chaos a stable, pro-western, nation or it fails. Only time will tell.
What we can judge is what we did immediately after the invasion. History will judge our post invasion efforts to have been incompetent at best, criminal at worst. The U.S. Government made a difficult situation even more difficult by instituting stupid policies that alienated the population of Iraq, by not understanding realities on the ground and refusing to understand them, by not listening to people who could help, and by allowing ideology to supersede logic and practicality. We made it harder, we needlessly killed Americans and Iraqis by our arrogance and stupidity.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The U.S. Auto Industry
There has been much discussion about “saving” the U.S. auto industry, loaning GM and Chrysler billions on top of billions to help them survive. Why? Why do we need to continue pumping billions into an industry that clearly is unable to compete in the modern economy? And who decreed that Chrysler, GM and Ford must exist for the health of the U.S. economy? Take the emotion out of the argument, take away the fear and let’s look at it in the cold light of day.
The U.S. auto industry, as currently configured, is a drain on the U.S. It requires billions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer every decade or so, which we never see a return on. During the present economic crisis, the U.S. auto industry continues to seek billions of dollars, and when asked for plans on how to restructure and become more efficient and productive, they present plans that depend on U.S. tax payer bailouts. The U.S. auto industry is a drain on the U.S. budget and the economy. They lack the vision, imagination and creativity to adapt to the changing world. Their leadership, frankly, sucks, and is incapable of leading the industry out of the storm to safe shores.
In a truly capitalist economy, we would let these companies go under because they are unable to compete. We cannot instill policies like the old Soviet Union, where inefficient and non competitive companies are allowed to continue operating with government assistance.
The U.S. auto industry as currently configured is holding us back in many areas, such as producing efficient, green vehicles. I recommend that we let Ford, Chrysler and GM go under. Let them file for bankruptcy, restructure and if they can, come back more lean and better focused. In the meantime, take the billions of dollars that would otherwise go to the big three, and give it to the smaller companies in the U.S. that are trying to develop more fuel efficient cars. Let help these companies take the place of the big three U.S. automakers.
These smaller companies are more efficient and better focused. By aiding them we can start down the path to lessening dependence on foreign oil much faster. We can also ensure a vibrant and robust U.S. auto industry by helping these companies rise to prominence. Who says that the face of the future U.S. auto industry must be Ford, GM and Chrysler? Why shouldn’t it be a different face?
There has been much discussion about “saving” the U.S. auto industry, loaning GM and Chrysler billions on top of billions to help them survive. Why? Why do we need to continue pumping billions into an industry that clearly is unable to compete in the modern economy? And who decreed that Chrysler, GM and Ford must exist for the health of the U.S. economy? Take the emotion out of the argument, take away the fear and let’s look at it in the cold light of day.
The U.S. auto industry, as currently configured, is a drain on the U.S. It requires billions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayer every decade or so, which we never see a return on. During the present economic crisis, the U.S. auto industry continues to seek billions of dollars, and when asked for plans on how to restructure and become more efficient and productive, they present plans that depend on U.S. tax payer bailouts. The U.S. auto industry is a drain on the U.S. budget and the economy. They lack the vision, imagination and creativity to adapt to the changing world. Their leadership, frankly, sucks, and is incapable of leading the industry out of the storm to safe shores.
In a truly capitalist economy, we would let these companies go under because they are unable to compete. We cannot instill policies like the old Soviet Union, where inefficient and non competitive companies are allowed to continue operating with government assistance.
The U.S. auto industry as currently configured is holding us back in many areas, such as producing efficient, green vehicles. I recommend that we let Ford, Chrysler and GM go under. Let them file for bankruptcy, restructure and if they can, come back more lean and better focused. In the meantime, take the billions of dollars that would otherwise go to the big three, and give it to the smaller companies in the U.S. that are trying to develop more fuel efficient cars. Let help these companies take the place of the big three U.S. automakers.
These smaller companies are more efficient and better focused. By aiding them we can start down the path to lessening dependence on foreign oil much faster. We can also ensure a vibrant and robust U.S. auto industry by helping these companies rise to prominence. Who says that the face of the future U.S. auto industry must be Ford, GM and Chrysler? Why shouldn’t it be a different face?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Where did we leave off last time? If we are to successfully combat the Islamic insurgency then we need to adapt our tactics to the threat. Once again I point out that we should not be fighting terrorism any more than we fought against the blitzkrieg or the surprise attack in WWII. Terrorism is a tactic. We are faced with a classic insurgency in many respects, intent on changing the existing political order in the Middle East. It is not a monolithic insurgency, centrally controlled and driven by a central goal, such as we faced in Vietnam in the 1960's. Al-Qaida provides a sort of central voice to the various groups, and some political philosophy and legal justification (more on this later). The Muslim Brotherhood provided early political and legal justification for political jihad, but in the end, there are various groups, ranging from sophisticated, organized entities like Hezbollah, to groups as unsophisticated as a few men unhappy with their lot in life taking it out on a group of tourists or the local government. Our concern must be the larger groups with world wide appeal and capabilities. They pose the threat to US interests.
First of all I would like to say that I do not believe that these extremist groups, as currently constituted, pose a major national security threat to the US. By this I mean they lack the capability to destroy the US, reduce our national territory, and bring down our government or economy. They do, however, pose a threat to US national interests and pose a threat to US lives, both at home and abroad. We were the nation that stood up to the Germans and Japanese simultaneously during WWII, and defeated them. I think we should be able to meet the Islamic insurgency and defeat it just as easily. So America, stop being afraid, stop being terrified by every man with a long beard, every woman with a headscarf, and stop crapping your pants every time a brown person speaks in a foreign language. We are Americans. People are afraid of us, not the other way around.
Now how do we combat the Islamic insurgency? Let’s treat it like an insurgency. First off, stop calling this thing a war. If it was really a war we would mobilize America. That would entail reinstating the draft in order to increase the military to 2-3 million + personnel to really fight a war. We would harness American industry to producing much more military hardware than we produce now. In short, we would replicate what we did in WWII. We are not fighting a war, and politicians use the term war (War on Poverty, War on Drugs) to show they are serious. This is a counterinsurgency, a serious one, but one that we can deal with without going to war. Using the term war makes the American people feel better that the politicians are doing everything possible to keep them safe.
This is also not a Law Enforcement action. I have heard people say how we should treat terrorist acts as criminal acts and give the lead to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) to develop criminal cases and prosecute them. I disagree with that viewpoint. LEA have a critical role to play at home in keeping the streets safe from terrorism, but law enforcement by its nature, develops cases against criminal enterprises when they pose a threat to American lives, an most often, after the fact of the crime. This counterinsurgency requires us to not only defeat the insurgents before they attack, and without recourse to the US justice system, but it requires us to defeat the insurgent organizations overseas. LEA cannot do this.
To defeat and insurgency you must first separate it from its source of support, the people. Insurgencies die when they have no support from the populace, which the insurgents need to provide recruits, supplies, funds and intelligence. Once that is done, the insurgencies days are numbered. If you fail in that effort, your days are numbered. The US needs to put a great deal more emphasis on the root causes of the insurgency and the legal underpinnings. Let’s look at the latter first.
Not to over simplify but Islam is a legalistic religion. The Quaran and supporting Hadiths lay out a legal frame work for every day life for the observant Muslim. Without that legal backing actions and activities can be viewed as illegitimate. That is why organizations like al-Qaida issue fatwahs, to provide the religious/legal justification for their actions. That is why the ideological underpinnings of the Islamic insurgency are so important. In order to get recruits and the support of the people, the actions of these groups must be supported by the legal backing of the Quaran. I believe, in order to strip away support for these groups, we must focus on discrediting the religious and legal backing for terrorism and the insurgency, and replace it with the moderate interpretations of main stream Islam. (More to come)
First of all I would like to say that I do not believe that these extremist groups, as currently constituted, pose a major national security threat to the US. By this I mean they lack the capability to destroy the US, reduce our national territory, and bring down our government or economy. They do, however, pose a threat to US national interests and pose a threat to US lives, both at home and abroad. We were the nation that stood up to the Germans and Japanese simultaneously during WWII, and defeated them. I think we should be able to meet the Islamic insurgency and defeat it just as easily. So America, stop being afraid, stop being terrified by every man with a long beard, every woman with a headscarf, and stop crapping your pants every time a brown person speaks in a foreign language. We are Americans. People are afraid of us, not the other way around.
Now how do we combat the Islamic insurgency? Let’s treat it like an insurgency. First off, stop calling this thing a war. If it was really a war we would mobilize America. That would entail reinstating the draft in order to increase the military to 2-3 million + personnel to really fight a war. We would harness American industry to producing much more military hardware than we produce now. In short, we would replicate what we did in WWII. We are not fighting a war, and politicians use the term war (War on Poverty, War on Drugs) to show they are serious. This is a counterinsurgency, a serious one, but one that we can deal with without going to war. Using the term war makes the American people feel better that the politicians are doing everything possible to keep them safe.
This is also not a Law Enforcement action. I have heard people say how we should treat terrorist acts as criminal acts and give the lead to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) to develop criminal cases and prosecute them. I disagree with that viewpoint. LEA have a critical role to play at home in keeping the streets safe from terrorism, but law enforcement by its nature, develops cases against criminal enterprises when they pose a threat to American lives, an most often, after the fact of the crime. This counterinsurgency requires us to not only defeat the insurgents before they attack, and without recourse to the US justice system, but it requires us to defeat the insurgent organizations overseas. LEA cannot do this.
To defeat and insurgency you must first separate it from its source of support, the people. Insurgencies die when they have no support from the populace, which the insurgents need to provide recruits, supplies, funds and intelligence. Once that is done, the insurgencies days are numbered. If you fail in that effort, your days are numbered. The US needs to put a great deal more emphasis on the root causes of the insurgency and the legal underpinnings. Let’s look at the latter first.
Not to over simplify but Islam is a legalistic religion. The Quaran and supporting Hadiths lay out a legal frame work for every day life for the observant Muslim. Without that legal backing actions and activities can be viewed as illegitimate. That is why organizations like al-Qaida issue fatwahs, to provide the religious/legal justification for their actions. That is why the ideological underpinnings of the Islamic insurgency are so important. In order to get recruits and the support of the people, the actions of these groups must be supported by the legal backing of the Quaran. I believe, in order to strip away support for these groups, we must focus on discrediting the religious and legal backing for terrorism and the insurgency, and replace it with the moderate interpretations of main stream Islam. (More to come)
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Terrorist Ideology
See, I am still using the term terrorist, but mostly because it is easier for finding common understanding. During my experience in the US government it was very evident that few people working on terrorist issues understood the underpinnings of terrorism or the ideological and legal basis for terrorist actions. Most people had captured a few catch phrases, but that was about it. How can you fight a "war" if you don't understand its causes and motives? This is even more important when dealing with an insurgency.
Islam is a very legalistic religion, and filled with different schools of legal thought, especially regarding the interpretation of teachings. For terrorist insurgent groups to carry out their war and for them to obtain support of the people, there must be a basis in religion and an ideology steeped in Islam but which interprets certain events and actions in a way that supports their long term aims. To win the fight and end this insurgency we must understand the ideology, its goals, and combat them in ways other than kinetic.
I would recommend reading the works of Hassan al-Bana, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sayyid Qutb, his intellectual successor. These two man, with others, are the main ideological background of modern terrorism, even though at times they espoused a more moderate resistance to the oppression of the Egyptian government. We should also read "The Management of Savagery," by Abu Bakr Naji, an unidentified individual or group of individuals possibly affiliated with al'Qaeda. Two major points come immediately to mind when reading these works.
Many members of the Muslim Brotherhood, where jailed, and some executed, by the Egyptian government in the 1960's and 70's. All where tortured while in prison. There are many that would argue that what happened to America on September 11th, 2001, was born in the prisons of Egypt. Torture created a thirst for revenge, the humiliation suffered by these men led to intense hatred of the Egyptian regime and its principal support, the US. After being broken and humiliated, these men left prison with a deep desire to seek revenge. This would argue against using torture, or "enhanced interrogation" as a tool since it would only lead to greater desire to do us harm and breed more enemies.
The second thing that stands out when reading these works is that victory, as defined by these groups is not victory as we in the west would define it. In "The Management of Savagery" it becomes clear that the insurgents understand they cannot win a war with the US, nor do they intend to. Their objective is propaganda. They want the US to intervene militarily in the Middle east, become bogged down in wars, and cause terrible hardship for the people in the region. The goal is not to win, however, the goal is to not lose. By standing up to the US and not being totally defeated, the insurgent groups gain prestige and legitimacy in the region. In addition, with the suffering of the people at the hands of the US, the insurgents gain new recruits to continue the fight. In the end, the US will leave and the insurgents will fill the vacuum.
We can argue how important these writings are to modern insurgents, and I would argue they do play a role, but we need to understand them because the insurgent groups obtain intellectual and spiritual support from these writings, and they form the basis of their strategy.
More later.
Islam is a very legalistic religion, and filled with different schools of legal thought, especially regarding the interpretation of teachings. For terrorist insurgent groups to carry out their war and for them to obtain support of the people, there must be a basis in religion and an ideology steeped in Islam but which interprets certain events and actions in a way that supports their long term aims. To win the fight and end this insurgency we must understand the ideology, its goals, and combat them in ways other than kinetic.
I would recommend reading the works of Hassan al-Bana, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sayyid Qutb, his intellectual successor. These two man, with others, are the main ideological background of modern terrorism, even though at times they espoused a more moderate resistance to the oppression of the Egyptian government. We should also read "The Management of Savagery," by Abu Bakr Naji, an unidentified individual or group of individuals possibly affiliated with al'Qaeda. Two major points come immediately to mind when reading these works.
Many members of the Muslim Brotherhood, where jailed, and some executed, by the Egyptian government in the 1960's and 70's. All where tortured while in prison. There are many that would argue that what happened to America on September 11th, 2001, was born in the prisons of Egypt. Torture created a thirst for revenge, the humiliation suffered by these men led to intense hatred of the Egyptian regime and its principal support, the US. After being broken and humiliated, these men left prison with a deep desire to seek revenge. This would argue against using torture, or "enhanced interrogation" as a tool since it would only lead to greater desire to do us harm and breed more enemies.
The second thing that stands out when reading these works is that victory, as defined by these groups is not victory as we in the west would define it. In "The Management of Savagery" it becomes clear that the insurgents understand they cannot win a war with the US, nor do they intend to. Their objective is propaganda. They want the US to intervene militarily in the Middle east, become bogged down in wars, and cause terrible hardship for the people in the region. The goal is not to win, however, the goal is to not lose. By standing up to the US and not being totally defeated, the insurgent groups gain prestige and legitimacy in the region. In addition, with the suffering of the people at the hands of the US, the insurgents gain new recruits to continue the fight. In the end, the US will leave and the insurgents will fill the vacuum.
We can argue how important these writings are to modern insurgents, and I would argue they do play a role, but we need to understand them because the insurgent groups obtain intellectual and spiritual support from these writings, and they form the basis of their strategy.
More later.
The War of Terror
This will be the first in a series on postings on terrorism. I hope to provoke a lively and spirited discussion.
The first point is that I hate the term "War on Terror." War denotes a specific undertaking, and requires the harnessing of ALL instruments of national power toward the goal of winning said war. Let's face it folks, we haven't harnessed anything but our complaining power. To fight a war requires us to change our way of life, focus our industrial power to producing the material needed to fight the war and getting every man and woman in this country working toward winning the war. We would need to devote the majority of our national economic resources to achieving this goal. We haven't done any of this, including reinstating the draft (which i do not advocate).
Calling this a war is a misnomer. It gives the American people the wrong impression and leads us to use the wrong tools to combat terrorism. This is more akin to a police action of the Cold war, or more properly, and counterinsurgency, which brings me to my second point. This is not a war on terror. Terrorism is a tactic used by the enemy to counter our overwhelming conventional superiority. We don't fight tactics. It would be as if World War Two were called the war against the Blitzkrieg, instead of a struggle against Fascism. The point of this is to understand what we are fighting so that we can use the proper tools to combat the enemy and defeat them.
We are faced with a global insurgency that uses terrorism as its most prevalent tactic. Their goal is the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in the Middle East with them as the ruling elite. If they could develop a large, conventional military that could stand up to American military power they would, however, they can't, so they turn to time honored insurgency tactics, which include terrorist attacks. So let's call this what it is, a global, nongovernmental insurgency whose goal is to seize power throughout the Islamic states. To do that they must drive the United States, and their western allies, out of the region and end their support for the regimes currently in power throughout the region. This will allow the insurgents to topple the governments one by one, establish sharia states, and rule according to their beliefs, which are inimical to U.S. and western interests.
There is the crux of our problem. I point this out because countering an insurgency takes more than military power to win. We saw how ineffective military power was in Vietnam, even coupled with a weak political/economic program. We do need a military component in our fight against the Islamic insurgency, or whatever we call it, but military power cannot be our sole or even most important component of our struggle, and that is the topic of the next posting.
The first point is that I hate the term "War on Terror." War denotes a specific undertaking, and requires the harnessing of ALL instruments of national power toward the goal of winning said war. Let's face it folks, we haven't harnessed anything but our complaining power. To fight a war requires us to change our way of life, focus our industrial power to producing the material needed to fight the war and getting every man and woman in this country working toward winning the war. We would need to devote the majority of our national economic resources to achieving this goal. We haven't done any of this, including reinstating the draft (which i do not advocate).
Calling this a war is a misnomer. It gives the American people the wrong impression and leads us to use the wrong tools to combat terrorism. This is more akin to a police action of the Cold war, or more properly, and counterinsurgency, which brings me to my second point. This is not a war on terror. Terrorism is a tactic used by the enemy to counter our overwhelming conventional superiority. We don't fight tactics. It would be as if World War Two were called the war against the Blitzkrieg, instead of a struggle against Fascism. The point of this is to understand what we are fighting so that we can use the proper tools to combat the enemy and defeat them.
We are faced with a global insurgency that uses terrorism as its most prevalent tactic. Their goal is the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in the Middle East with them as the ruling elite. If they could develop a large, conventional military that could stand up to American military power they would, however, they can't, so they turn to time honored insurgency tactics, which include terrorist attacks. So let's call this what it is, a global, nongovernmental insurgency whose goal is to seize power throughout the Islamic states. To do that they must drive the United States, and their western allies, out of the region and end their support for the regimes currently in power throughout the region. This will allow the insurgents to topple the governments one by one, establish sharia states, and rule according to their beliefs, which are inimical to U.S. and western interests.
There is the crux of our problem. I point this out because countering an insurgency takes more than military power to win. We saw how ineffective military power was in Vietnam, even coupled with a weak political/economic program. We do need a military component in our fight against the Islamic insurgency, or whatever we call it, but military power cannot be our sole or even most important component of our struggle, and that is the topic of the next posting.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Rant - Why I Hate Miami
I know that is a strong title, and if thought about it, I guess I wouldn't hate Miami, but hell, let me vent. The most obvious thing about Miami is the lack of civility throughout most of the city. People behave as if there were no one else on the planet except for themselves. Let's start with driving. Regardless of age, people here normally drive 5-15 miles per hour under the speed limit, even on highways with posted speeds of 70 mph. I don't ask that people speed, but for God's sake at least do the speed limit, and if for some reason you are physically incapable of handling breakneck speeds of 45 mph, then get to the left lane and give some space for others to pass. It is as if they were all in a contest to see how slow they can drive without actually coming to a stop. The other day, a car loaded with "gangsta" Latinos stopped in the middle of a busy six lane road to gawk at a window front of high end cars, and that isn't the only time it has happened.
People in Miami will block access to isles, start yakking about crap as soon as they get to the counter of a busy store and allow a line to pile up behind them while they recount the last illness of cousin Berta to a bored and uncaring cashier who wants nothing more than to ignore the 80 people clamoring to pay for their merchandise and get out. Little old ladies are passing out, but no one seems to budge.
The motto here is "its all about me." More on this later.
People in Miami will block access to isles, start yakking about crap as soon as they get to the counter of a busy store and allow a line to pile up behind them while they recount the last illness of cousin Berta to a bored and uncaring cashier who wants nothing more than to ignore the 80 people clamoring to pay for their merchandise and get out. Little old ladies are passing out, but no one seems to budge.
The motto here is "its all about me." More on this later.
Blogging
Before I start off blogging, I have to do what I always do, and engage in a bit of pointless introspection. Who am I to blog? Who cares what I have to say? Is it arrogant to think that half the world cares about what I, or other bloggers, have to say? And what about the ability to hurt or cause damage as a result of throwing out in public random thoughts, or rants that result from a particularly bad day. All these question pop into my head as I write. Not to mention the more personal concerns, such as what if I come across as an idiot, can't spell, can't write.
I am not comfortable putting myself out there for all the world to read about. I am of a generations where privacy is important, and one's personal life is no one's business. I assume that by blogging I will be giving up a part of that cherished privacy and anonymity.
Since this is my first time blogging, I apologize to anyone who stumbles across this page for its lack of cohesion and coherence. This is a work in progress, and should it continue, will almost certainly be changed on a regular basis. I will also apologize in advance for any rants that may offend. There are days when certain things will provoke a rant, and while I don't intend to hurt any individual, there will be shrapnel flying all over the place, and some innocent people might be injured.
I am not comfortable putting myself out there for all the world to read about. I am of a generations where privacy is important, and one's personal life is no one's business. I assume that by blogging I will be giving up a part of that cherished privacy and anonymity.
Since this is my first time blogging, I apologize to anyone who stumbles across this page for its lack of cohesion and coherence. This is a work in progress, and should it continue, will almost certainly be changed on a regular basis. I will also apologize in advance for any rants that may offend. There are days when certain things will provoke a rant, and while I don't intend to hurt any individual, there will be shrapnel flying all over the place, and some innocent people might be injured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)