The following is a comment someone made on the Reflector's website about the article I previously posted on this blog. It shows how people's ignorance determines their viewpoints, or conversely, how their views (not the facts) can determine their knowledge. In other words, this person has a certain view, so selectively determines his knowledge of an issue. Some of his comments are just blatantly wrong (aka Stupid), it is ridiculous. Following the comment is the reply I made to his comment. Although it is long, I did not have the time to compose it very well, but it is the content that matters anyway.
Here is the critics' comment:
I strongly disagree with your stance on this issue. First off, you are using The Times as a source. In the pst year the time has put out numerous misleading and outright false stories which they have had to retract, so there credibility has been thrown out the window.
Secondly, it is a well known fact that Sadam did have WMD's. Think about it, Sadam had years and years to hide them or get them out of the country. I dont think we could have strolled in there and found huge store houses of weapons. Then we had the dems in congress who voted against supplying our troops with the sufficient body armor and humvee armor they needed. At first we did not have a sufficient amount of troops in Iraq, but the administration has corrected that by implementing the recent troop surge which has had great success.
Hind sight is always twenty-twenty. Are there things that we should have done differently? Yes, but this is a new kind of ware-fare we are facing so there isnt a set of guidelines we are following. The Administration did not lie to the American public. The only thing we can do is use the best intelligents we have at the time and act upon it.
People, like you, want to paint the Bush Administration as an evil and decitful administration carrying out this war for personal gain. What you fail to realize is that we are much safer now then before 9/11. Instead of waiting or fighting the terrorist here in the U.S. we are taking the fight to them.
Here is my reply:
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Sunday, April 27, 2008
On Compromise
The following post is a copy of another post I made in my friend's blog post: The Knights of the Square Table.
Today, I feel like writing about compromise. Ever since my discussion with Blake concerning his argument with Matt about education (as written about in a previous blog post), I have been contemplating the "the tao of compromise." For those of you "stupid, rich, ignorant, white Westerners" out there, "tao" means "way of" or "art of."
Just in case you are either too lazy to read Blake's post, or are like me and don't care what Blake writes (hehe), his ingenious post articulated how he reached the epiphany of compromise between both his and Matt's radical views. On one side, Matt advocated almost complete anarchy in our education system with no control by the federal government. Blake, on the other hand, was basically advocating a right-wing, religious, theocratic, and tyrannical education. (Another note: I have recently been experimenting with John Adam's maxim, "Why use only one adjective when six or seven will do just as well?") His compromising solution was to let the states handle education. In this issue, the two extremes involve federal control and anarchy. State regulation, therefore, is a compromise between the two sides.
My point that I'm trying to get at is that compromise is often-ignored political tool that can work wonders. Not only does it work to satisfy both sides, but it often ends up being the "right" thing to do anyway. Examples throughout history are numerous, and recently, I came across a personal, real-world example that I will reveal in a minute.
Historically, compromise was the foundation of our legislative branch. In The Great Compromise, otherwise known as the Connecticut Compromise, agreed to at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the big states and small states agreed to a bicameral legislator, consequently forming the Senate and House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any other big historical examples, but here is my recent personal example. I am an officer in an organization called Arnold Air Society, which is basically a community service-oriented honors society exclusively for top Air Force ROTC cadets. Every year, candidates go through an extensive training process in order to be initiated. Near the end of their training, we have to evaluate whether we think they are worthy to go through with the final stage, an extended training exercise (usually a rough all-weekend, hardcore, paintball match in which they have to demonstrate teamwork, leadership, knowledge, and blah blah blah) and get formally initiated at the end). Naturally, we have to evaluate these candidates based on what we think they will do once they are in AAS, not what they have done in the past. However, it is only natural to want to initiate them after they have gone through all hard work of the training process.
Anyway, our squadron commander (CC) brought up the issue of a certain candidate whom he had worries about. This cadet supposedly has an "attitude," and our CC thought, based in part on his performance, that this candidate, whom I will now call Bob, would only perform at a minimal level (meet standards and be done with it). So, our CC put it to a vote, and the kid was not accepted. Personally, I abstained from the vote simply because I had not interacted with Bob very much and was not very involved in the candidate training process. There are numerous details I could bore you with, but the simple matter is that it has to be understood within an AFROTC context...and it would be extremely boring. Several of us felt extremely disappointed because we felt bad for Bob after putting him through all that training.
A couple days later, I pulled a "Blake Maneuver" and had an epiphany. Unfortunately, it was already too late to influence the decision. When you become a member of AAS, it is not necessary that you have a job or any responsibility. You have to get service hours, go to meetings, etc; but not necessarily any more than that. The circumstances upon which we rejected Bob and were definitely ambiguous, but if we let him continue and finish the process, we would have given him a chance to prove us wrong. Furthermore, by initiating and giving him very gradual responsibility, we would not have had to worry about him bringing the squadron down. Lastly, if he did not perform up to par, he would not have enjoyed the benefits or recognition of having a squadron job. On one side, we did not want to accept him. On the other side, he would have joined the squadron, performed poorly, and hurt the squadron. My idea represented the magic word: "compromise."
My experiences with compromise now offer me a guiding light for any serious future decisions or opinions. Compromise and moderation are often the answer. In the future, hopefully, I can be more aware of the circumstances and the factors concerning my decision-making. In the AAS example, maybe I could have made the difference between Bob getting initiated into AAS or not. As a political figure one day, you never know, it may mean the difference between passing The Great Compromise or not.
Today, I feel like writing about compromise. Ever since my discussion with Blake concerning his argument with Matt about education (as written about in a previous blog post), I have been contemplating the "the tao of compromise." For those of you "stupid, rich, ignorant, white Westerners" out there, "tao" means "way of" or "art of."
Just in case you are either too lazy to read Blake's post, or are like me and don't care what Blake writes (hehe), his ingenious post articulated how he reached the epiphany of compromise between both his and Matt's radical views. On one side, Matt advocated almost complete anarchy in our education system with no control by the federal government. Blake, on the other hand, was basically advocating a right-wing, religious, theocratic, and tyrannical education. (Another note: I have recently been experimenting with John Adam's maxim, "Why use only one adjective when six or seven will do just as well?") His compromising solution was to let the states handle education. In this issue, the two extremes involve federal control and anarchy. State regulation, therefore, is a compromise between the two sides.
My point that I'm trying to get at is that compromise is often-ignored political tool that can work wonders. Not only does it work to satisfy both sides, but it often ends up being the "right" thing to do anyway. Examples throughout history are numerous, and recently, I came across a personal, real-world example that I will reveal in a minute.
Historically, compromise was the foundation of our legislative branch. In The Great Compromise, otherwise known as the Connecticut Compromise, agreed to at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the big states and small states agreed to a bicameral legislator, consequently forming the Senate and House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any other big historical examples, but here is my recent personal example. I am an officer in an organization called Arnold Air Society, which is basically a community service-oriented honors society exclusively for top Air Force ROTC cadets. Every year, candidates go through an extensive training process in order to be initiated. Near the end of their training, we have to evaluate whether we think they are worthy to go through with the final stage, an extended training exercise (usually a rough all-weekend, hardcore, paintball match in which they have to demonstrate teamwork, leadership, knowledge, and blah blah blah) and get formally initiated at the end). Naturally, we have to evaluate these candidates based on what we think they will do once they are in AAS, not what they have done in the past. However, it is only natural to want to initiate them after they have gone through all hard work of the training process.
Anyway, our squadron commander (CC) brought up the issue of a certain candidate whom he had worries about. This cadet supposedly has an "attitude," and our CC thought, based in part on his performance, that this candidate, whom I will now call Bob, would only perform at a minimal level (meet standards and be done with it). So, our CC put it to a vote, and the kid was not accepted. Personally, I abstained from the vote simply because I had not interacted with Bob very much and was not very involved in the candidate training process. There are numerous details I could bore you with, but the simple matter is that it has to be understood within an AFROTC context...and it would be extremely boring. Several of us felt extremely disappointed because we felt bad for Bob after putting him through all that training.
A couple days later, I pulled a "Blake Maneuver" and had an epiphany. Unfortunately, it was already too late to influence the decision. When you become a member of AAS, it is not necessary that you have a job or any responsibility. You have to get service hours, go to meetings, etc; but not necessarily any more than that. The circumstances upon which we rejected Bob and were definitely ambiguous, but if we let him continue and finish the process, we would have given him a chance to prove us wrong. Furthermore, by initiating and giving him very gradual responsibility, we would not have had to worry about him bringing the squadron down. Lastly, if he did not perform up to par, he would not have enjoyed the benefits or recognition of having a squadron job. On one side, we did not want to accept him. On the other side, he would have joined the squadron, performed poorly, and hurt the squadron. My idea represented the magic word: "compromise."
My experiences with compromise now offer me a guiding light for any serious future decisions or opinions. Compromise and moderation are often the answer. In the future, hopefully, I can be more aware of the circumstances and the factors concerning my decision-making. In the AAS example, maybe I could have made the difference between Bob getting initiated into AAS or not. As a political figure one day, you never know, it may mean the difference between passing The Great Compromise or not.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Times discovers iceberg of deceit
The following is an article I published in the Opinion section of The Reflector:
In Vietnam, victory was eluded by the will of the American people and the ineptitude of those in authority. Americans were unable to endure a long occupation with their hands tied behind their backs. So in 2002, during the initial planning for the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration developed a plan to defeat the media and sway the American public.
According to a recent in-depth article by The New York Times, the Department of Defense and the Pentagon deliberately "recruited" military analysts from the major media outlets such as Fox News, ABC, CNN and NBC as "surrogates" in order to generate favorable public opinion. Furthermore, in most cases, unbeknownst to their media employers, the same military analysts had ties to defense contractors or lobbies.
Amazingly, this has not stirred a whole lot of controversy. Virtually the only news organization to cover the story outside The New York Times has been Reuters. This has most likely been a consequence of The New York Times article's claim that the other news organizations are largely at fault for carelessly hiring the military analysts in the first place.
This article is only the climactic tip of the iceberg. The Bush administration - in particular, the Department of Defense - has been rife with controversy not seen since Robert McNamara's stint during the Vietnam War. The administration has done everything in its power to mislead, deceive and outright lie to the American public. Examples are abundant and do not need explanation. They include everything from controversy over weapons of mass destruction to an inadequate number of troops in the invasion to the lack of armor in Army Humvees.
The Times article uses as its primary sources thousands of documents obtained after suing the Department of Defense. Those documents include e-mail correspondence, transcripts and memos. In addition, The Times sought interviews with all the parties involved. These documents and interviews proved quite revealing.
Starting with preparations to invade Iraq, the Department of Defense began establishing correspondence with potential media military analysts. They realized they could not "convert" the average journalist, so they sought military analysts to disseminate their propaganda. They wanted to give the American public the impression that the mainstream journalist was ignoring reality. Technically, they did nothing illegal. They did not pay military analysts to support the war and their policies. It was more subtle than that.
They told The Times that their numerous meetings and disclosing of information with the analysts was nothing more than an "earnest attempt to inform the American people." However, many of those analysts had doubts. As the war progressed, they began to notice a divergence of information between what the Pentagon was providing and what was becoming public through other sources such as books and confessions. On the same token, many analysts had doubts about the war from the beginning, especially after hearing details of the "incriminating" evidence against Iraq.
Nonetheless, most of the analysts quenched their doubts and misgivings when it came to providing their "independent" military analysis on the air or in newspapers. Some feared that if they voiced any opposition, they would be kicked out of the posse and lose their access, as Fox analyst retired Marine Col. William Cowan unceremoniously was. During one tour of Iraq, information leaked that the Army was resorting to using sandbags and Kevlar blankets for added protection in the unarmored Humvees. Not a word of that information or other potentially critical information was passed to the press.
Every time a controversy arose, the analysts were at then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld's or the administration's side. The administration would generously provide their "moles" with talking points and selective information to resist the media and sway public opinion. They soaked it all in. After the "Generals' Revolt," analysts met with Rumsfeld and later came on the air to give their support of Rumsfeld. They claimed these generals represented only a small portion of the military. They unanimously came on the air to voice their opposition to adding more troops in Iraq and to impeaching Rumsfeld.
I won't rehash the entire article; it is available online at The Times Web site. The important point to realize is that these "objective" military analysts have all this time simply been extensions of the Bush administration, a "media Trojan horse" as the Department of Defense called them. Many military thinkers without business interests or lobbying commitments have criticized the conduct of the Iraq War. Whatever the opinion on the invasion of Iraq or the current occupation, these military analysts have been used, some unwittingly, to mislead the American public. Some were misled by the government; others misled the public intentionally. Despite the resignation of Rumsfeld, they are still being used, especially by the commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petreaus. Ultimately, this campaign of deception is only the climactic tip of the iceberg for a Bush administration that has been full of deceit.
Laz
In Vietnam, victory was eluded by the will of the American people and the ineptitude of those in authority. Americans were unable to endure a long occupation with their hands tied behind their backs. So in 2002, during the initial planning for the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration developed a plan to defeat the media and sway the American public.
According to a recent in-depth article by The New York Times, the Department of Defense and the Pentagon deliberately "recruited" military analysts from the major media outlets such as Fox News, ABC, CNN and NBC as "surrogates" in order to generate favorable public opinion. Furthermore, in most cases, unbeknownst to their media employers, the same military analysts had ties to defense contractors or lobbies.
Amazingly, this has not stirred a whole lot of controversy. Virtually the only news organization to cover the story outside The New York Times has been Reuters. This has most likely been a consequence of The New York Times article's claim that the other news organizations are largely at fault for carelessly hiring the military analysts in the first place.
This article is only the climactic tip of the iceberg. The Bush administration - in particular, the Department of Defense - has been rife with controversy not seen since Robert McNamara's stint during the Vietnam War. The administration has done everything in its power to mislead, deceive and outright lie to the American public. Examples are abundant and do not need explanation. They include everything from controversy over weapons of mass destruction to an inadequate number of troops in the invasion to the lack of armor in Army Humvees.
The Times article uses as its primary sources thousands of documents obtained after suing the Department of Defense. Those documents include e-mail correspondence, transcripts and memos. In addition, The Times sought interviews with all the parties involved. These documents and interviews proved quite revealing.
Starting with preparations to invade Iraq, the Department of Defense began establishing correspondence with potential media military analysts. They realized they could not "convert" the average journalist, so they sought military analysts to disseminate their propaganda. They wanted to give the American public the impression that the mainstream journalist was ignoring reality. Technically, they did nothing illegal. They did not pay military analysts to support the war and their policies. It was more subtle than that.
They told The Times that their numerous meetings and disclosing of information with the analysts was nothing more than an "earnest attempt to inform the American people." However, many of those analysts had doubts. As the war progressed, they began to notice a divergence of information between what the Pentagon was providing and what was becoming public through other sources such as books and confessions. On the same token, many analysts had doubts about the war from the beginning, especially after hearing details of the "incriminating" evidence against Iraq.
Nonetheless, most of the analysts quenched their doubts and misgivings when it came to providing their "independent" military analysis on the air or in newspapers. Some feared that if they voiced any opposition, they would be kicked out of the posse and lose their access, as Fox analyst retired Marine Col. William Cowan unceremoniously was. During one tour of Iraq, information leaked that the Army was resorting to using sandbags and Kevlar blankets for added protection in the unarmored Humvees. Not a word of that information or other potentially critical information was passed to the press.
Every time a controversy arose, the analysts were at then secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld's or the administration's side. The administration would generously provide their "moles" with talking points and selective information to resist the media and sway public opinion. They soaked it all in. After the "Generals' Revolt," analysts met with Rumsfeld and later came on the air to give their support of Rumsfeld. They claimed these generals represented only a small portion of the military. They unanimously came on the air to voice their opposition to adding more troops in Iraq and to impeaching Rumsfeld.
I won't rehash the entire article; it is available online at The Times Web site. The important point to realize is that these "objective" military analysts have all this time simply been extensions of the Bush administration, a "media Trojan horse" as the Department of Defense called them. Many military thinkers without business interests or lobbying commitments have criticized the conduct of the Iraq War. Whatever the opinion on the invasion of Iraq or the current occupation, these military analysts have been used, some unwittingly, to mislead the American public. Some were misled by the government; others misled the public intentionally. Despite the resignation of Rumsfeld, they are still being used, especially by the commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petreaus. Ultimately, this campaign of deception is only the climactic tip of the iceberg for a Bush administration that has been full of deceit.
Laz
Monday, April 21, 2008
On Military Funding and Preparedness and Changes in the Global Security Environment
Over the last few weeks, I have done an enormous amount of research for class, the school newspaper, career development, and personal curiosity. As a result, my insatiable desire for knowledge and the application of it has led me to itch for school to be over with and summer to be here. Following is a sort of summary of what I have learned and what I plan to do about it.
First, I have been particularly interested in the state of the Armed Forces, both as a result of a solidification of my political views, my study of American Military History, and my pursuit of the study of applicable politico-military history in relation to the United States today and the solving of its problems. This study has also been a consequence of my decision to become a politician after my future career in the Air Force. My belief is that knowledge is truth (more on this philosophy later).
I have discovered that the operational costs of long-term military commitments have led to a significant decline in military preparedness. Budget allocations are one primary reason for this. In order to pay for such operations with limited funding, the Armed Forces have to reallocate funding from long-term investments to meet short-term needs. Such has been the case in both the Army and the Air Force. Both services have reallocated funds from procurement (the obtainment of new products), research and development, and training to support operations costs including combat/incentive pay, fuel usage, dropping bombs, etc. Examples of long-term side effects are unfortunately numerous: the significant increase in average aircraft age in the Air Force, the increasing number of accidents (due in my opinion to reduced training), the lack of spare parts and armor in the Army, the lack of a single fully-ready and deployable combat brigade, rising concerns of stress levels, etc, etc, etc. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Over the summer, I plan to do more research and write an article for the Air Force Association magazine, if they will accept it.
Secondly, I have also been having increasing interest in emerging superpowers. I have always been interested in clashes between superpowers. Military-fiction/techno-thrillers were a key staple of my youth and continue to be. The recent version of warfare consisting of counter-insurgencies and special forces just has not been "sexy" enough for my liking. So, partially out of interest, and largely because of a growing sense of worry, I have been researching the likes of emerging superpowers, in particular China. For my 20th Century Intelligence Gathering class, I had to develop a presentation based on a fictional intelligence operation involving a major power during the 20th century. For a variety of reasons, I chose a conflict between the People's Republic of China (as opposed to the Republic of China, otherwise known as Taiwan) and the United States. Anyway, the short version of the story is that China is a dormant, but blooming, military and economic threat flying under the radar. Polls have shown that China is 4th on Americans' list of most dangerous adversaries.
Despite the public's lack of concern, China is host to numerous statistics that point to its future, if not current, threat to the United States. China's military budget has increased by double digits every year since the end of the Cold War except 1994. They have significantly increased their offensive cruise missile and bomber arsenal. They have aggressively pursued research and development and currently rival the United States in many areas. They can shoot down our satellites, and they are considered the world's leader in cyber warfare. Economically, they currently have the fourth largest economy in the world and are quickly rising through the ranks. Unemployment dropped from near 50% in 1981 to 8% today. Etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on. Everything points to an increasingly volatile China.
Moreover, the advancement of China has conversely seen the decline of the United States. Despite my extreme patriotism for my country, the outlook for the U.S. is grim if it continues on its current path. The decline of the U.S dollar since World War II; the increasing trend of reduced military spending coupled with increased military entanglements and peacekeeping operations; the rise in entitlement spending such as health care, social security, and Medicaid; declining moral and family values; and increasing fiscal irresponsibility. David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office, has compared the United States to the Roman Empire in its decline. Numerous statistics and signs contribute to such a conclusion, but this topic will be expanded upon in a later article/blogpost.
China is not alone in its emerging superpower status. Russia's economy is booming, military spending has significantly increased under Putin, and they have been pursuing many aggressive policies. Other rising superpowers include India, Brazil, and the combined power of the European Union. The short establishment of a uni-polar world (one superpower) is quickly fading to that of a very multi-polar one. One that could lead to tumultuous times, yet one which would be very intriguing for a military fiction fan like me. In all seriousness, though, this is in my opinion very near to happening. Not to present a negative or positive connotation of such a world; I just think we need to be aware of such a new global environment and should prepare for such an eventuality. Imagine a world in which the U.S, China, Russia, the European Union, India, and Brazil all are major power with near equal resources and strengths competing for dominance in the world. The idea is both terrifying and exciting at the same time.
Such are my rantings about my research and things I have learned and been speculating on. I can't wait to dig down and start flipping pages and pounding away at the keyboard this summer. This stuff makes for a good novel, which reminds me as to another reason I have been so speculative. Tom Clancy, recently came out with a novel based on an upcoming computer real-time strategy game called EndWar that is being developed based on a plot of World War III in the near future. There are three real-time strategy games I plan to pursue this summer: Dale Brown's Act of War, Larry Brown's World in Flames, and Tom Clancy's EndWar. When will I possibly find time for a game of Risk or Axis and Allies?
First, I have been particularly interested in the state of the Armed Forces, both as a result of a solidification of my political views, my study of American Military History, and my pursuit of the study of applicable politico-military history in relation to the United States today and the solving of its problems. This study has also been a consequence of my decision to become a politician after my future career in the Air Force. My belief is that knowledge is truth (more on this philosophy later).
I have discovered that the operational costs of long-term military commitments have led to a significant decline in military preparedness. Budget allocations are one primary reason for this. In order to pay for such operations with limited funding, the Armed Forces have to reallocate funding from long-term investments to meet short-term needs. Such has been the case in both the Army and the Air Force. Both services have reallocated funds from procurement (the obtainment of new products), research and development, and training to support operations costs including combat/incentive pay, fuel usage, dropping bombs, etc. Examples of long-term side effects are unfortunately numerous: the significant increase in average aircraft age in the Air Force, the increasing number of accidents (due in my opinion to reduced training), the lack of spare parts and armor in the Army, the lack of a single fully-ready and deployable combat brigade, rising concerns of stress levels, etc, etc, etc. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Over the summer, I plan to do more research and write an article for the Air Force Association magazine, if they will accept it.
Secondly, I have also been having increasing interest in emerging superpowers. I have always been interested in clashes between superpowers. Military-fiction/techno-thrillers were a key staple of my youth and continue to be. The recent version of warfare consisting of counter-insurgencies and special forces just has not been "sexy" enough for my liking. So, partially out of interest, and largely because of a growing sense of worry, I have been researching the likes of emerging superpowers, in particular China. For my 20th Century Intelligence Gathering class, I had to develop a presentation based on a fictional intelligence operation involving a major power during the 20th century. For a variety of reasons, I chose a conflict between the People's Republic of China (as opposed to the Republic of China, otherwise known as Taiwan) and the United States. Anyway, the short version of the story is that China is a dormant, but blooming, military and economic threat flying under the radar. Polls have shown that China is 4th on Americans' list of most dangerous adversaries.
Despite the public's lack of concern, China is host to numerous statistics that point to its future, if not current, threat to the United States. China's military budget has increased by double digits every year since the end of the Cold War except 1994. They have significantly increased their offensive cruise missile and bomber arsenal. They have aggressively pursued research and development and currently rival the United States in many areas. They can shoot down our satellites, and they are considered the world's leader in cyber warfare. Economically, they currently have the fourth largest economy in the world and are quickly rising through the ranks. Unemployment dropped from near 50% in 1981 to 8% today. Etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on. Everything points to an increasingly volatile China.
Moreover, the advancement of China has conversely seen the decline of the United States. Despite my extreme patriotism for my country, the outlook for the U.S. is grim if it continues on its current path. The decline of the U.S dollar since World War II; the increasing trend of reduced military spending coupled with increased military entanglements and peacekeeping operations; the rise in entitlement spending such as health care, social security, and Medicaid; declining moral and family values; and increasing fiscal irresponsibility. David Walker, the former head of the Government Accountability Office, has compared the United States to the Roman Empire in its decline. Numerous statistics and signs contribute to such a conclusion, but this topic will be expanded upon in a later article/blogpost.
China is not alone in its emerging superpower status. Russia's economy is booming, military spending has significantly increased under Putin, and they have been pursuing many aggressive policies. Other rising superpowers include India, Brazil, and the combined power of the European Union. The short establishment of a uni-polar world (one superpower) is quickly fading to that of a very multi-polar one. One that could lead to tumultuous times, yet one which would be very intriguing for a military fiction fan like me. In all seriousness, though, this is in my opinion very near to happening. Not to present a negative or positive connotation of such a world; I just think we need to be aware of such a new global environment and should prepare for such an eventuality. Imagine a world in which the U.S, China, Russia, the European Union, India, and Brazil all are major power with near equal resources and strengths competing for dominance in the world. The idea is both terrifying and exciting at the same time.
Such are my rantings about my research and things I have learned and been speculating on. I can't wait to dig down and start flipping pages and pounding away at the keyboard this summer. This stuff makes for a good novel, which reminds me as to another reason I have been so speculative. Tom Clancy, recently came out with a novel based on an upcoming computer real-time strategy game called EndWar that is being developed based on a plot of World War III in the near future. There are three real-time strategy games I plan to pursue this summer: Dale Brown's Act of War, Larry Brown's World in Flames, and Tom Clancy's EndWar. When will I possibly find time for a game of Risk or Axis and Allies?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
I can now start my lifelong dream of spreading evil throughout the world using the Internet!!! Welcome to my blog of EVILLLL!!!! HAHAHAHA!
Now that is out of the way....welcome to my brand-spankin' new blog. It will consist of blogposts of various types, including music, politics, philosophic rantings, sports commentary, cool videos, journal entries, whatever I feel like writing; at least until I get the time this summer to get serious enough about the Skunk Works to filter its content somewhat.....Until then, enjoy what it's got, when it gets it. The level of participation by others will be determined at a later date. Enjoy!!!
The first blog will come later.
Now that is out of the way....welcome to my brand-spankin' new blog. It will consist of blogposts of various types, including music, politics, philosophic rantings, sports commentary, cool videos, journal entries, whatever I feel like writing; at least until I get the time this summer to get serious enough about the Skunk Works to filter its content somewhat.....Until then, enjoy what it's got, when it gets it. The level of participation by others will be determined at a later date. Enjoy!!!
The first blog will come later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Second, it NOT a well-known fact that Saddam had WMD's. The CIA actually did not think that Saddam had WMD's, but CIA director George Tenet felt pressured to make the case that Saddam did have WMD's, so selectively chose the information he gave the President. Read up about him, you'll learn a lot. I do not disagree, however, that it is a POSSIBILITY, that Saddam may have moved the WMD's, but at this point, I think he probably did not. Yes, we did not have enough troops at first, but this has been corrected by the ousting of Rumsfield (who vehemently supported a small number of troops despite the opinions of most generals). Most of the controversy surrounded the body and Humvee armor has been around the fact that the DOD, particularly Rumsfeld, intentionally hid the fact from these military analysts and from Congress. They often chose to ignore and hide problems rather than fix them.
Thirdly, this is most definitely NOT a new kind of warfare. Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, colonial/imperial wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, etc are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to historical examples. Most military experts and historians, I am sure, would agree with me. We simply handled the war badly from the beginning with the Rumsfeld administration. Currently, we couldn't be handling the Iraq war any better in my opinion. Rumsfeld was simply a current-day Robert McNamara. There are guidelines for the war, and we did not follow them initially. Lastly, the administration did lie, and they did deceive the American public. They deceived the military analysts, indirectly deceiving the American public. They used selective information to incriminate Saddam, they have lied somewhat about their counter-terrorism abilities prior to 9/11, they hid information about the body armor and Humvees and made people think there was progress at a time when the situation was only getting worse because of the negligent handling of the war.
I hate it when people like to paint other people as "anti-Bushites" or Bush haters, but that's what it comes down to. Personally, I am conservative. However, whether you are conservative or not, or whether you supported the war or not, there was a way to handle it properly, and it wasn't done. Bush has largely been a bad republican president. He has deceived the American people in numerous ways.
I never said I did not support the Iraq war, but you have stereotyped me as an anti-Iraq War person. Just because I criticize our handling of the war does not imply I disagree with Bush's foreign policies. I do think the Iraq war could have been done successfully, but it was still a mistake. I think we have actually made ourselves less safe, because we have left ourselves largely defenseless. The War on Terror is not a war against nations, so the enemy is not clear-cut. Meaning that if we go over commit ourselves against other nations which may not be a direct threat to us, we are leaving ourselves defenseless at home. Our military is stretched to the breaking point, we are reducing our long-term readiness, we are sending our border control guards to Iraq instead of guarding our own borders, therefore leaving the door wide open for some terrorist to get through and attack us. Furthermore, instead of attacking us at home, they can just attack us overseas. If you know someone wants to kill your family, and you leave them at home to go attack somebody else, are they safe? No, they are defenseless. If you know who the attacker is, and it is only one person, and you know where he is, then yeah it is no problem. But in this global insurgency, you have no single, clear-cut attacker, so we are leaving our homes defenseless to attack an ambiguous enemy. It is not smart. Yes, we should have attacked Afghanistan, yes we should commit to the intelligence agencies and not tie their hands behind their back, but no we should not over commit to the wrong enemy. By being in Iraq, we also only adding fuel to the fire and helping the enemy to recruit more soldiers. Their "reason" for attacking us has already clearly been proven to be largely because of our foreign policy of interfering in Muslim nations' affairs and being stationed in the holy lands. So, yes I do think the Iraq War was a mistake, but that it could have been done more successfully.
Read up on some George Tenet, on some General Anthony Zinni, and some Ben Scheuer, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Don't just pick a side in an argument and take knowledge for granted, and do not selectively choose information either.