International lawlessness begins at home with you

We do hear ever so much from some folks about 'International Law' on this or that topic, but when you ask them to point to what 'International Law' *is*, you get the famous Dumb Looks. Yes, indeedy, the UN is brought up... but that is a voluntary arrangement amongst the States involved to have a common forum and try to get a few things done together. And as every despot, tyrant, dictator, and authoritarian regime and some number of terrorist organizations is given a hearing there, it tends to be dominated by those with the biggest lungs, the loudest voices and the least amount of rights for their people... if they can even gather a Nation together which terrorists can't seem to do.

No one elected them.

They are not held accountable to the People of Planet Earth.

The UN is proportionately weighted to those with the despotic tendencies, as they also tend to have the most number of Nations around, so any attempt at 'democracy' gives such tyrannies full and open court to demean everyone else and not find one iota of wrong-doing in their own realms. The place reflects that.

Plus their resolutions are only as binding as the Nations want them to be, which is pretty damned little. Without backing nor legitimacy nor enforcement mechanism nor anyway to ensure equality of full rights for mankind, what you get is a slanted and distorted organization that is pro-tyranny and anti-democratic. So looking to the UN to *stop* aggressors is only as good as anyone wanting to step in and do the job, which usually falls to many Nations with inadequate and corrupt militaries and regimes, that then seek to exploit their 'peace keeping' positions to do all sorts of skulduggery, such as pedophilia, prostitution, and slavery. Such friendly 'peace keepers'. Still they should be trying to protect people, but usually end up bailing out on those folks at the first sign of trouble, like Rwanda and Srebrenica.

That really does strike the UN off as anything close to legitimate in this idea of 'International Law'. The only real improvement over the old League of Nations is that voluntary forces can be brought to bear if everyone and their grand-uncle can agree on it, and only then if some large, cohesive Nation backs it. Sort of like the old Roman Law where you could get a ruling in your favor, but it was up to YOU to enforce it. And since the rich could enforce the law by renting or buying enforcers, that was that. What a great paradigm for the UN, no?

Here is a bit from the old USS Clueless site, in which den Beste is replying to an individual on the question of International Law prior to the invasion of Iraq (highlighting mine):

It's a common tactic to try to get people to use a certain term for something as a way of framing the conversation. One has a different attitude about "wetlands" than one does about "mosquito-infested swamps". Draining a swamp sounds like a good idea, but everyone knows we're supposed to preserve wetlands.

Those who are trying to frame this as a discussion of "international law" are doing so because they're trying to imply certain things about international relations by extrapolation from our experience with national law. Within our nation we agree to be bound by the law, even if it tells us we cannot do certain things we desire to do, and when we have disagreements with each other, we take them to court and plead them in front of a disinterested jury which makes a decision, after which both sides are bound by that decision.

By extrapolation, the rhetoric about "international law" is being used to imply that the US may not unilaterally attack Iraq unless it gains permission through some formal process of "international law", that to do so it must prove that Iraq was directly involved in either the September attack or in other direct attacks against us, using convincing evidence publicly presented, before the UN. Based on that presentation, the UN (probably the Security Council) will then serve the function of jury and decide if the US has made an adequate case, after which it will decide whether the US would be given the right to attack.

The idea of jury trial in our normal affairs is intended as a way of restraining people from creating their own justice, and by the same token the users of this rhetoric see the process of approval by the UN as a way of restraining rogue nations (of which there is only one, needless to say, and I'm living in it). If we are sufficiently convinced of our reasons for attacking Iraq, we should have no compunction of proving it before what amounts to an international jury of our peers.

That's radically different than the reality of international relations, characterized by Geoff Hill as little more than a series of non-binding contracts.

Yes, the contracts themselves are only as binding as the States involved want them to be. This is worked out via this thing known as 'diplomacy', in which States make agreements with each other to the extent that they want, and then adhere to them, or not, as the case may be. In the US a Treaty gains the level of the Constitution for clarification, but has no other impact upon the full Constitution as the only way to amend the Constitution is set out within that document and Treaties are not that method. As for the binding status of such Treaties, Geoff Hill notes the following:

I quote the following from Malcolm N. Shaw in his 'International Law, Fourth Edition' book: "International law is primarily formulated by international agreements" and "states do observe international law and will usually only violate it on an issue regarded as vital to their interests". None of these statements has anything to do with imposition to authority or practice. All international laws are complied with by the signatories -as they see fit-, and can/have been broken if said signatories view the following of the laws as contrary to their vital interests.

Since there is no overriding sovereign authority who can impose any international laws on any signatories [The UN is toothless in this regard], since any signatories can [and have in cases] flouted certain international laws [witness Norway and whaling laws], and since the laws -only- apply to the signatories and not the world in general, they can't very well be considered laws. They would be more properly designated as non-binding contracts upon the parties involved.

Diplomatic agreements are Nation State to Nation State affairs, and are the guiding principle of how Nations interact with each other. 'International Law', then, only has force if those who have signed up to the agreements involved respect those agreements or are punished by the other signer(s) to uphold such agreements.

Further on Mr. den Beste looks at this and the way that 'International Law' is being used to hamper the normal methods of State to State interaction:

Take, for example, the attempt to use the UN Security Council as a mechanism in international affairs analogous to a jury in a civil suit. The jurors in the civil suit are intended to be uninvolved in the issue to be decided, and each juror is questioned by the attorneys in the case before being seated on the jury, and they are dismissed if they do know either party in the case or otherwise have some involvement with it. If jurors lie about their involvement in the case, and try to fix the result based on their own self-interest and get caught, then they are in major trouble. (It's a felony.) As a result, the jurors ideally have no interest in anything except trying to be fair.

But that is not the case in the Security Council, nor in any other international forum available. The members of the Security Council tend to vote on the basis of their own self interest. They would not be disinterested, and would not vote on the basis of the merits of the case. A given member of the council would approve our attack if it was to their benefit and vote against if the attack would be to their disadvantage irrespective of the merits of the issue.

So the actual effect of a requirement for UNSC approval for an attack would be that the US would not be permitted to fight a war any place which was inconvenient for any veto power, or for any 8 of the 12 non-veto nations currently on the Council (who, by the rules, collectively have a veto). The merits of the American case, and any evidence presented, would have no effect on the result. For all practical purposes, the Security Council can't pass anything even remotely controversial, including this. It isn't a jury and can't be treated as if it was one.

But if the decision process is flawed, the concept of the rules themselves is even more flawed. Proponents of this idea also try to present the idea that only certain "international crimes" can justify attack on another nation, and they particularly frame this case so that a suspicion that another nation plans harm against yours isn't enough; you have to prove that they actually already have committed direct acts against you. (They have to have done so, and you have to be able to prove it. They're also trying to invoke "presumption of innocence".)

They're deliberately setting the bar at that height because they strongly suspect that it can't be leaped. What they're saying is that wars may only be in retaliation; you can't ever preemptively attack someone in order to prevent a future attack against yourself.

But it's not clear just where that "law" came from. I've seen no reference, no source, no justification at all beyond the fact that those opposing the attack want to set the bar that high so as to prevent the US from mounting an attack.

Another implication is that we as a nation obey the law even when we enforce it against lawbreakers, such as criminals. By analogy, the US is not freed from the strictures of "international law" just because Iraq is in flagrant violation of that same law. (Which it is, among other reasons because it is currently directly violating the cease fire agreement it signed with us in 1991.)

And, of course, the finally ingredient is the presumption that obedience to the law is mandatory even if you don't like the law. Thus even if the US really, really wants to fight in Iraq it doesn't get to do so unless it satisfies this process described above because, well, it's the law and you always obey the law.

Unless you are a Leftist and into Civil Disobedience, vandalizing structures, threatening people and then complaining about the pepper spray in the face. But Nations just aren't supposed to act like that because the Left says so! And they will cite the non-existent 'International Law' all day long and not point to *which* law enforcement body you are supposed to go to. Because there isn't one.

Now, if you really don't believe that anyone would try to slant things in this direction, we can take a look at what Mr. Dan Froomkin the #2 editor at the Washingtonpost.com has to say about what is expected behavior by reporters when going after the Bush Administration:

Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War

War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough.

Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better.

Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned?

Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”?

Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better?

Remember, this is how reporters are supposed to slant the issues when covering the elected President's Administration in the Nation State known as the United States of America. These are not mere talking points, but philosophy and outlook that are antithetical to the running of a Nation State. By using the implication that things are going smoothly and swimmingly *now* and that if we all 'just got along together wouldn't things be better?' concept, this puts at peril the very ability of Nation States to hold each other accountable for their actions. Once accountability is removed, ANY action, including invasion of another Nation, genocide and moving to put at peril neighboring Nations is acceptable in this paradigm. Any Nation that dares take action to do anything to assert its rights as a Sovereign Nation is told to just 'suck it up and take it'.

Or just the United States and its Allies as the press seems fine and dandy with dictatorships and tyrannies expanding and intimidating folks to get their way. Thus the stance itself is anti-democratic and anti-Nationalist. This is not the Nationalist of pro/con of one Nation, but a pure stance against the entire system of Nation States. By putting this forward as a set of ideas to weaken the United States, these same actors are destroying the very 'International Law' that they purport to uphold. Diminish the capability of Nations to have outlook and enforce Treaties, and you are at the start of removing Nations as Sovereign Units.

What are these things that the Left keeps on pointing to as 'International Law'? This part from den Beste sums it up:

That agrees with the Jacksonian view of things: "international law" is an illusion. What you have are cases where nations cooperate for the benefit of both, in trade or in military cooperation or in any of several other ways, and as soon as the relationship ceases to be valued by both, it generally ends. The fact that most of those relationships follow a pretty standard pattern and last a long time doesn't mean there's any law involved; it just means that the nations involved are honorable and consistent.

Long standing Friends and Allies with which Nations have enduring cooperation have just that - long standing and enduring cooperations between Nations that represent their Peoples. They find it agreeable to work together on common causes and that can often bring Nations closer together over time and lead to more and deeper agreements between those Nations. As Sovereign States they can sever those ties from either side, however, if they find that the agreements are no longer being abided by or that National outlook has changed. Such is the way of Nations.

Even worse, however, is when Treaties and agreements that have standing for long periods of time are no longer enforced. While the Left points to the Geneva Conventions to deride the United States, they have remained stoutly silent about it with the case of Iran taking UK Seamen hostage. By trying to enforce the agreement in the case of terrorists in the United States, the Left is trying to ignore that the US has not signed on to the 1977 GC that specifically *covers* terrorism: the President and Senate have both refused to sign on since 1980, with all opportunities for intervening Presidents and Senates to push to try and get this going.

No President nor Senate will do that as it contravenes the basic outlook of what is allowable in the way of the use of the irregular Armed Forces of a Nation. The US Constitution particularly gives power to the Congress to utilize war powers covering the non-Federal but National capability of Citizens and their companies in the form of Privateers via the Letters of Marque and Reprisal language. The 1977 GC cannot be signed as it contravenes the Constitution and steps in on a power only the People of the United States can work on. Terrorists, by not being in the employ of a Nation are going against the outlook of what is warfare by the United States. Terrorists, to the US, are waging illegitimate war outside the framework of Nation States and thus have no backing and no standing.

In the case of Iran, however, which *is* a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, the Left has pulled out the feeble "but they aren't at war!". The GC covers *more* than just active warfare and also accounts for Belligerent status, which is what happens when one Nation kidnaps another Nation's Uniformed Soldiers, in contravention to Treaty and even common civil understanding of warning a ship to *leave* territorial waters. This is particularly covered in the following:

Convention III
Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949

Art. 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Article 4 is the one that eveyone remembers for Armed Conflict, but Article 5 covers just this situation where Iran is asserting a belligerent act and doubt as to the status of these soldiers in uniform as being *spies*. Mind you being in uniform when captured like this is the exact opposite of what a spy IS in the Geneva Conventions. Uniformed Soldiers of a Nation State get protections under the Geneva Conventions as they are the fully lawful representatives of that Nation and represent that Nation. Nations that sign on to the Geneva Conventions agree to respect that for *all* other Nations or unrecognized Nations in the case of Civil War. You put on a Uniform of your Nation and you get these protections from the signatories of the Geneva Conventions. This is *especially* the case between two Nations that have signed the GC as both the UK and Iran have. This Treaty is fully in-force for both and ALL Nations that have signed the GC should look to ensure that all OTHER signatories are upholding it. To not do so is to remove the legitimacy of the GC as something that is enforced by its signers and to remove it from play in conflicts.

If Iran did not consider this act to be one of belligerence or to be an infringement of their Sovereignty by the Armed Forces of the UK it would not have taken these Seamen captive. As they have and these individuals had on Uniforms they are to be accorded full status as POWs due to a belligerent act. In so doing there is a long list of things that Iran must do, including the following:

Art. 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Art. 14. Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.

Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men.

Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

This means, no parading POWs in front of the press or media, or through public areas for display. They are to get respected and private treatment, under the watchful eye of neutral third parties like the ICRC. Their messages to their Government and families may be censored and examined, but may not be published. This is the civilized treatment of individuals who have consciously put on the Uniform of their Nation and is respected by ALL signatories to the GC. Breaches of the GC are considered to be War Crimes when committed by a signatory Nation and may be, depending upon action, a casus belli to any and all other signatory Nations.

By not enforcing this concept and the Sovereign Right of Nations to hold each other Accountable to such Treaties and Agreements, this international system of diplomacy and agreements is being degraded and eroded.

Without diplomacy having any backing via the Rights of Nation States to enforce their Sovereignty and the backing of well understood agreements upon other Nations that have signed such agreements and blatantly disregard them, the entirety of the Nation State system is put at peril. The ability of Nation States to have reciprocity in their agreements and to be held to them is essential in this conceptions of Nation States as Sovereign containers. Within this system is the scope and capability to have all sorts of internal governments, and the interaction between these governments is done via diplomacy and held accountable by military action.

If you do not support that as a concept then you are putting the entire Nation State system at peril of disintegration.

And as a container type system it is also the ONLY thing that can actually hold a system that makes freedom and liberty possible within that container known as the Nation State. It is no guarantee of that, but it has that possibility within the internalized concept of Nation State. By not holding the accountability between Nations to be held to their agreements, the Nation State and your personal liberties are put at supreme risk over the long haul.

If you enjoy your liberties and freedom, then you should support this idea of Accountability amongst Nations to be held to their Agreements. Nothing better has been offered to date, and nothing replaces this Reciprocity of Agreements amongst Nations. If you don't support the Reciprocity and Accountability, then you do not support the idea that ANY NATION has value. You may not discriminate on this, from the weakest to the most powerful from the most free to the most repressive to their own people: If these Nations cannot be held accountable, then the structure of this system is put at risk and YOUR personal freedoms and liberties are put at risk right along with it.

And if you fall under the compact of We the People, then this is highly destructive to YOU if you do not support the ability of Nations to hold other Nations accountable to their signed agreements.

If other Nations do not want to be held accountable there is one and only one thing they should be doing: Not signing them or repudiating them.

They have that within their right as a Sovereign Nation State. That is fully acceptable.

And it tells us much when a Nation *does so*.

This should be beyond Left and Right, beyond *politics*.

To not support Treaties and the reciprocity inherent in them is suicide to you.

Slow, long water torture of which the only end is Barbarism.

That is what you are asking for if you do not support these agreements in all cases and fully for what Nations have signed up to both singly and collectively. Otherwise the agreements become fully meaningless, the system of Nation States unsupportable and your rights and freedoms worthless when the Nation State system is destroyed by these actions.

That is where this leads when Reciprocity to be held to Agreements becomes worthless as a concept.

And that does scale *perfectly* from the National to the Individual.

If you do not support Nations to stand by this, then you are saying that you do NOT stand by your agreements as an Individual.

So one's position on the concept of Reciprocity to be held to one's agreements on the Nation State end of things is also seen as a reflection of the Individual involved.

Sphere: Related Content

Let me know when you have some *real* global warming data

The following is being posted so that I do *not* have to continually regenerate it... I have been saying this for months, now, and really do need to have one, pithy post to refer to and this will be it! Naturally it is a *comment*, in this case at Roger L. Simon's place on a thread on global warming.

Spelling and such are kept intact to show the inabilities of the author:

jdwill - My thanks! Those are the merely cyclic things that will happen in North America that I consider to be the top 5 problems that we haven't even started to address... and one #1 has global fallout both figuratively and literally.

I did look at global warming previously, and as a geologist, find much higher correlation with plate tectonics and continental configuration than with carbon dioxide for global temperature. About 70 million years ago the continents started to move faster, due to unknown factors in the core of the planet and heat transmission. That had the effect of speeding up crustal movement, which allows the less dense continents to ride higher than the oceanic crustal material. That rise in the continents drained the large, shallow seas over much of them into their deeper basins, thus changing the stored energy system of Rock 3 from the star Sol.

This single change also started to move Antractica into a polar position, which is very rare in Earth's history and gave it a heat sink which drastically altered the heat retention system of the planet: It got a permenent cold place to let heat escape into space. Global temperatures started to fall due to these things.

Other effects are also seen, like increased volcanic activity due to subduction of oceanic plates. Apparently more 'hot spots' started to appear and give the planet more volcanos that way, including some of the megacaldera makers that started to show up around that era.

At Continental plate boundaries that were colliding, seas got squeezed out and when the continental crusts hit, they got squeezed together. The Himalayas are *still* growing upwards due to the Indian sub-continent pushing into Eurasia. The Rocky Mountains were also effected by this, as seen by the embedded river systems of the Green and Colorado rivers.

A final kicker was a nice sized boloid about 10km across hitting the planet. It was not a good time to be an organism over 15 kg in size as you would not make it through that event, at 65 million years ago. Since then, having lost those lovely, warm heat retaining, shallow seas, having the thermostat pushed down by the boloid and having a nice, new heat sink, Rock 3 has experienced glacial periods with intermittent warming times, that have high variability within a cool temperature range. That is typical of interglacial periods: rapid swings in temperature, globally, but within a confined range that is generally warmer than the glaciation period, but much, much colder than the previous Cretaceous period.

Can we get back to those balmy days of 70 million years ago with only changing carbon dioxide? And methane? And water vapor? Probably not... those all reached maximums in the Carboniferous when carbond dioxide was around 7,000 ppm and calcium carbonate rock deposited via chemistry and animal activity, like with foraminfera. You see a *lot* of coal beds and calcium carbonate beds from this timeframe, both indicative of taking carbon *out* of the atmosphere. Our current 300 ppm +/- 15% is a long way from those hazy, lazy days of high methane, carbon dioxide and water vapor... all of which saw a relatively stable global temperature 14 degrees higher than it is now. Actually, once the continents aren't moving fast and we have vast, shallow seas and low volcanic activity, that seems to be the regular temperature of the planet.

That higher energy from the core is released through these mechanisms, but it doesn't much impact climate which is guided by these factors which are a way of releasing heat. Such pretty volcanos, though! But not worth it for the hot gasses that cool extremely quickly, hot extruded material which cools quickly and the hot particulates that cool very quickly.

Want to raise the temps? Stop the plates from moving after re-uniting Gondwanaland and getting Antarctica out of the deep freeze. And then flooding most of the continental lowlands as they slowly settle down and behave themselves. Like NOLA, but with 1 km more water added. Then you get nice, shallow seas retaining energy from the sun and higher global temps. Of course the Rockies turn into 'coastal areas' but well worth it for stable temps and removing glacial periods.

Bad planet!

As for us that live on the crust, the long term forecast is: sudden temperature swings, with a relatively narrow temperature band for some short duration and then sudden, long-lasting cold spells with 1.5 km high continental glaciers and the temperate zone shifting to the equator during those times. Check the 5 million year forecast to find out when this will end and the good old days return...

Yes, I am getting tired of restating the basics. If you can't figure out plate tectonics, volcanism, mountain building, oceanic heat retention, placing a heat sink in the southern polar region, and taking into account at least 800 million years of Earth's history... then do *not* bother me with carbon dioxide and methane amounts in the atmosphere until the oxygen percentage drops below that sustainable for terrestrial life, ok?

Sphere: Related Content

Short memory span on Portland by Bill O'Reilly

Yes, I was watching Mr. O'Reilly again with is Radicalism on Display Talking Points Memo last night as I find that I can switch between his dull segments and more interesting fare with things like Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs re-runs on the Discovery Channel, or any of the Modern Marvels re-runs at the History Channel. Having to wade through the latest in Anna Nichole or whatever comely young woman has gone missing is a bit much, at times, so the snoozy limited attention span does help! But this did catch my attention before I nodded off on the sofa, from Mr. O'Reilly's memo du jour:

A few days ago in Portland, Oregon, a so-called peace rally featured masked American haters, who chanted things like "No Gods, No Country, No Masters". They also burned the American flag and effigies of American soldiers, if you can believe it, all the while chanting "fascist wars are nothing new, it's not just Bush the soldiers too:"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: It's not just Bush it's soldiers too! Fascist war is nothing new! It's not just Bush it's soldiers too! Fascist war is nothing new!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now this disgusting display was given a happy face by the committed left Oregonian newspaper, which mentioned the radicalism but said overall the protest was "family friendly." Yes, if you're "The Sopranos."

Now this kind of exposition could not have happened four years ago in America, even in ultra- liberal Portland. Mass hoodlums running around disrespecting USA would have been confronted by the media and perhaps by people on the street.

But Iraq has changed everything in this country. According to a new Wall Street Journal poll, only 43 percent of Americans believe the USA should take military action against Iran if it develops a nuclear weapon. An astounding 47 percent of us say let Iran have the nukes! It's not worth a fight.

Again, four years ago — inconceivable. The chaos in Iraq has had so many unintended consequences, I can't even list them. But there is no question, the USA has turned to the left and the radical left is now emboldened.

Well! I do fear that Mr. O'Reilly has been asleep on the set if he actually *believes* that. No flag burnings and hoodlums doing things? Really? Then how does he account for this bit from an account on a 05 JAN 2002 protest in Portland:

12:43 pm Rumour has it that people have been asked to stay in their houses, and more riot cops are lining up along MLK...Unconfirmed reports of arrests. Crowd has swelled to nearly 1000.[Ed note: it was reported ;ater that in actuality the rally at park swelled from 300 to 500 by noon and there were around 500 people marching to the YO center]
12:45 pm At least one, possibly 3 people have been arrested.
12:48 pm Confirmed that one arrest has been made--{Ed note: evening news reported that 2 arrests were made at the first location and 1 at the second, all charged with interfering with the police] a woman that walked gone around the block, via Cook, 1 block south and the East of MLK, and was arrested at Fargo and MLK. Crowd is on east side of MLK, in southbound lane, and is surrounded on lane side, and the south side by riot police, and the opposite lane is lined with riot police, armed with at least 2 tear gas guns, and one beanbag gun
12:55 pm Infernal Noise Brigade has arrived!!
1:04 pm Infernal Noise Brigade is playing at the front of the crowd, entertaining the riot cops.
1:16 pm A flag is being burned!
1:20 pm An interview with a local resident: the resident got a phone call at 9:30 am saying that if residents left their houses today, there would be no guarantee when they would be able return to their homes.
1:34 pm PPRC {Ed note: it is not clear whether the person with the megaphone was actually speaking on behalf of PPRC] report over the megaphone is that the speaking engagement at YO has been CANCELLED!! The marchers are in vacant lots right now, mobilizing and organizing rides to get to the next meeting place near to Parkrose High School.
1:49 pm Looks like the "reliable source" was misinformed; Corporate media tried to tell megaphone people that the speaking engagement had not been cancelled, but by then most people had left. 30-50 people were remaining near the YO center when the Presidential motorcade pulled into the YO center. Someone walking away with a little girl is yelling "f**king hippies".

Yes, President Bush was there to talk about forest management and logging! Flag burning, blocking streets and riot police get called out over forestry management. And that is in 2002.

A bit later that year on 22 AUG 2002 another demonstration was held when the President was in town to support a State Senator. Here is an excerpt of an account from that demonstration:

The riot squad was all over the place. You can't tell these people are human you know - you can't see their faces what with all the body armor and protective masks, and they act like robots. Maybe that's the point of it all - scare the bejesus out of your every day American citizen so that they won't ask embarrassing questions out loud about the idiocy of attacking Iraq just to win November's election. I thought I'd died and reincarnated in a newly formed Nazi Germany - complete with goosestepping and flag waving. . .

Well here, in Portland, we weren't taking it lying down. No, we were out there, screaming at the man to get another job and leave running the country to those more proficient. . . well, at least more intelligent and experienced. Do you notice how they keep Colin Powell locked up over in the State Department? God help Bush if that guy ever got out.

Don't know if you all saw the protesting on the telly, what with America's media now totally controlled by right wing extremists. But the protesting WAS there - and, much of it got so bad Portland's own brand of Gestapo were called in to quell the disturbance, and disperse the crowd. Which they did... using nightsticks and gas of course. One has to know the wonderfulness of this city to realize just how out of place such scenes are.

No wonder Portland's TV stations showed the clogging of the streets and the mass of protesting humanity. Hell, they even showed people being pepper sprayed, and little women confronting nameless brazen ogres in blue who looked like the maximum security prison's football team linebackers. . . but only of course, AFTER they put the usual FOX network right wing spin on things.

Still, it was a sight that made true patriots weep. So much for our jackass leader - with his 91 IQ and homicidal tendencies.

Don't get me wrong - it wasn't Kent State all over again. Dead students didn't line the streets. It wasn't the WTO and Seattle going berserk Hey, this is Portland, Oregon. We have more parks in this city that any other city in America. And people really DO ride bikes to work in this town, and no, they DON'T understand why other people in other towns don't do the same.

I mean it's just so healthy and all. But we gave a little back to the nation yesterday - in our own way.

The tide is shifting for this president. His desire to place 250,000 American young women and men soldiers in harms way in Iraq - out of a personal vendetta or worse, to win November's election... even against the wishes of his own generals - may have just been the straw that broke the camel's back. . Maybe the good lord IS looking down on America, finally.

So wonderful to have a British ex-pat joining in with gusto to exercise his or her rights here, isn't it? And so many misconceptions about what a 'civil demonstration' is for one's views and the fact that the lovely population of Portland, OR has one of the most continually nice climates on the planet that they can *afford* to ride bikes everyplace just doesn't enter the equation. And remember this is BEFORE going into Iraq.

A bit more on that protest from a copy of an AP story at the Portland Indymedia site:

Protestors Skirmish with Police
08/22/2002
By ABE ESTIMADA, TERESA BELL, AMY FRAZIER and JIM PARKER, KGW Staff


Late Thursday afternoon, demonstrators at one point began to disperse, but many returned.

Supporters of Bush in formal attire were jostled and taunted by protesters as they arrived for a fund-raiser for the re-election campaign of Sen. Smith. After elbowing their way through the crowd of demonstrators, the VIPs were checked by Secret Service agents before they were allowed inside the hotel.

Protestors face down riot police. (kgw.com Photo)

A melee erupted after police ordered about 500 protesters to move from a barricaded area.

Brian Schmautz, spokesman for Portland Police Bureau, said protesters threw things at the police.

"We've have had a number of items thrown at our officers over the past few hours," he said.

Riot police wearing helmets then walked into the area, pushing activists with their batons. Some activists fell. Police then fired aerosol canisters of pepper spray at the protesters.

Other Protests in Oregon

The Portland demonstrations came on the heels of protests in Central Point, Squires Peak and Medford, where Bush spoke earlier in the day about plans to increase forest logging in the hopes of reducing wildfire threats.

In Central Point, the picketers gathered with signs outside the Jackson County Fairgrounds, the site of a Bush speech on forest policy. The signs attacked Bush on the environment and international policies.

A dozen or more demonstrators dotted Bush's motorcade route up Squires Mountain. Some of the hand-lettered signs they waved at him: "No attack of Iraq. You can't fix Daddy's mistake" and "More forests, less Bush."

They were far outnumbered by local families waiting at the ends of their driveways holding "We love you" and "We support you" signs. There were also scattered demonstrators when Bush arrived and departed from the airport in Medford.

Yes, such peaceful demonstrators that throw things at police, just makes you wonder if *none* of them have ever been taught civilized manners in their lives. When you are asked and then told to clear the public walkways or streets so that regular Citizens may pass, you do have that obligation. You have the right to Free Speech, but you must also respect the rights of other Citizens to do as they wish and not hinder them. That is called 'civic responsibility'.

Another eyewitness report of that demonstration on 22 AUG 2002 and a comment from the comment thread:

According to one IMC reporter on the street, the crowd had broken up into several huge groups that have started getting back into one large group and heading towards the South Park blocks.

He notes that there has been news that someone did get maced but couldn't confirm it. I didn't get his location or have heard from the other reporters on the field. But according to a radio reporter the cops have started macing the crowds. Cops have just maced a cameraman and it sounded like the reporter was getting shoved and maced. I know that throat clencher.

And this JUST IN:

Police have just declared a State of Emergency at 5th and Taylor. Anyone down there will be arrested. They have shoved the crowd several times and everyone's been peppersprayed. A line is forming and people are coming back. No news on what prompted this.


[From an eyewitness account on 22 AUG 2002 in the comment thread ]


The incident that triggered the biggest surge of riot cops that I saw at this location was a group of maybe 15 protestors that swarmed a police car trying to turn from 4th Ave. onto Taylor. Protestors halted the car, plastic bottles started flying everywhere, and when the riot cops realized the police car couldn't get through, then a bigger amount of gas and some rubber/contact bullets were let loose. I witnessed a wound from the rubber bullet guns, or whatever they were, and plenty of people were gassed, at least 40 were quite teared. The crowd ran quickly away, but immediately the riot cops retreated to their previous line as the crowd came back chanting "peace-ful pro-test, peace-ful pro-test." This was around 4:30 pm, at 4th & Taylor, and I have it all on tape.

Also, every car I saw that needed to leave a parking garage was allowed through with minimal fuss. In fact, I'm surprised how little these drivers suffered, especially the SUVs. There should be no complaints from these people, not one.

Stopping a police vehicle and assaulting it is a good reason to show that you are hostile, intend to use force and will not respect the civil authorities. In fact this was a deliberate provocation on the part of demonstrators to get a police response. This demonstration actually made the National News on CNN on 23 AUG 2002:

PORTLAND, Oregon (CNN) -- As President Bush travels to a series of campaign stops in California on Friday, he leaves behind the aftermath of protest that turned violent on Thursday in Portland, Oregon.

Black-helmeted police in full riot gear fired pepper spray, bean-bag rounds and rubber bullets at hundreds of protesters who filled the streets of Portland on Thursday outside the hotel where Bush attended Republican Sen. Gordon Smith's re-election campaign fund-raiser.

While Bush was inside the Hilton Hotel, the protesters blasted the president on his international policies and the "Healthy Forests Initiative" he announced earlier in the day.

[...]

Chanting "Drop Bush, Not Bombs" and carrying signs with messages that included "It's the Economy, Stupid," the crowd of mostly young people occasionally blocked streets and tied up traffic during the afternoon as they made their way from a downtown park to the hotel.

At first policed by officers on horseback and on foot, the protest turned violent with the arrival of police in riot gear.

They arrived when protesters refused to back off a barricade near the hotel. The protesters pounded on police cars and shouted, and police responded with batons, pepper spray and "non-lethal" ammunition.

Portland media reports indicated that a handful of arrests were made during the day, and one police officer reportedly had minor injuries.

The Portland Police Bureau declined to speak directly to CNN regarding the incident.

Former Republican Sen. Mark Hatfield, blocked for a short time from entering the hotel for the Smith fund-raiser, said the protesters have a right to express their viewpoint.

"At the same time, I have a right to freedom of assembly, too," he said.

This would be pretty hard to be missed: assaulting a police vehicle, throwing objects at police, acting in a hostile manner, not clearing public streets and walkways when informed that the Public has the right of way to use them... all things that one really would think Mr. O'Reilly would take notice of.

In point of fact the O'Reilly Report DID take notice of it on 23 AUG 2002:

O'Reilly Factor features brief/interview on A22 protest

Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor this evening ran footage of yesterday's protest in Portland, followed by an interview with protester Ivan Maluski of the American Land Allience.

In essence, the host(not Bill O'Reilly; didn't get a name) played down the event in question, turning the interview into an argument over "thinning out" the forests. Major media drops the ball yet again.

Yes, indeed, Mr. O'Reilly's very own staff could have pulled out transcripts and realized that their show had, indeed, noticed violent goings-on in Portland, OR previously. They (the MSM) 'dropped the ball' because the more radical elements were NOT PLAYED UP. It is hard to be a good and committed Transnational Progressivist staging demonstrations in a miserable minority and find that all that lovely radicalism isn't even reported upon.

And just the following year, yes FOUR years ago, yet *another* protest in Portland, OR took place. This report on 20 MAR 2003:

Portland sends anti-war message to commuters

This afternoon in Portland, Oregon (aka Little Beirut) several thousand anti-war protesters joined forces and made their case against war while temporarily "paralyzing" the downtown area. Although I was unable to attend this evenings rallies, I was listening to local radio station KBOO and regularily checking for the latest news on Portland Indymedia ( http://portland.indymedia.org ). I would like to take a moment to thank each and everyone of you whom took the time out of your busy schedule to take part in such a moving display of empathy, angst and solidarity. Your actions were seen around the country...in Canada, Live on television in the midst of this horrible act against humanity that the Bush Administration has coined, "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Some might conclude that many of you are doing this soley to get your "face on tv"...when many of you cover your faces to not be known. Some call you idiots for blocking traffic, while some applaud a waging attrocity on the other side of the planet as if it were Super Bowl Sunday. Given the history and attention span of the general American Public, their interests will turn towards their daily lives and the Bush Regime will continue to wage war on every thing that stands in their steps to "freedom." Well, Cheney and Co., we have indured enough of your freedom fighting tactics to know better. They are more than just several thousand pissed off anarchists who "just want to break windows" or "piss the police off." They are the "freedom fighters" that you dare call yourselves. If we continue to stand aside and allow our civil liberties, our constitutional rights and our basic human rights to live...we will only become anoter victim of homeland terrorism.

The people have spoken. They have liberated the city streets tonight. They have shown that a small handful of people can effectively shut your system down in tiny increments. We are people, just as yourselves....just as the casualties of war are no different except their skin colour and religious beliefs. Bring our military strength back home and feed those who starve to death each year at home and abroad. We DEMAND a non-violent end to this problem. We DEMAND a peaceful outcome. We will hold the Bush Administration accountable for every innocent life that is lost during this escapade.

I can only hope that the days actions in Portland, San Francisco, Toronto, London and every place on this planet where people have spoken their mind doesn't go unnoticed. The tactics used today were very effective and I hope that with every action, the people continue to find new methods in which to tackle the infrastructure and make their case in the streets. To date, rallies/protests have been the ONLY peaceful method of getting their opinion out to the public in solidarity...and effectively. To those who criticize the methods used today...if the people caused your ride home to be extended...be thankful you don't find your innocent childs' life shortened because a country on the other side of the planet finds your leader to be "harmful" to their freedoms.

When will the United States be held accountable for their war crimes?

The people will not rest until this attrocity and all past and future attrocities have been stopped and justice served to those who have done wrong.

We're going to tear it all down... brick by brick...wall by wall.

Robby Russell
Webmaster

And then this from another report from that day:

Portland taken over by determined Anti-War Movement

Thousands of anti-war citizens taking to the streets put Portland traffic in great distress for the past six hours, closing I-5, I-84, and I-405 and closing major bridges and disrupting city bus services and after-work traffic. This huge city-wide protest resulted in many arrests of protestors who conducted a civil disobedience action by venturing out into highly dangerous Interstate traffic to stop the flow of fast-moving cars. Critical Mass bicyclers also backed up traffic when hundreds took over the downtown streets with their bikes, while a few groups of protestors clashed with police in various areas of Portland. On the Steele Bridge in Portland this afternoon, riot police were called in after a clash between police and protestors that resulted in excessive pepper-spraying of a small group of citizens, and also hitting them with batons. A police motorcycle was knocked over, which caused an injury of one police officer who was treated by emergency medical technicians on the scene.

Though 600 police officers were deployed today to handle the city-wide chaos of traffic, this evening, app. 200 Portland police are now being joined by Beaverton police in riot gear, to prepare for the ever growing rally of protestors now all peacefully convened together at 3rd and Burnside. Even though the rally now is very peaceful, there are tensions flying still because earlier in the day, anti-war protestors on Broadway spray -painted windows at a MacDonalds Restaurant and threw a hammer through one of its windows. A Ford car dealership in the same area reported its American flag was destroyed and its flag pole was bent and ripped out of the ground. A Shell gas station also reported receiving minor vandalism.

Riot police also formed a wall down the middle of one street near Waterfront Park to form a barrier to block tensions between a small group of pro-war and anti-war groups who were exchanging angry views: one group wanting to support the troops by supporting the war effort, and the anti-war groups supporting the troops in their own way, by stating NO WAR and thus urging to end the war immediately and to bring the troops home.

Yes, the ONLY way to communicate is via the mass demonstration, and such things as 'civic outreach', working in communities, talking to friends and neighbors, debating in civic fora and possibly even writing up works to be distributed are just not effective anymore. What is missed, however, is that the old concept of a 'mass rally' being the final culmination of months or years of work in cities, towns, and doing social outreach, as was the MLK march in Washington, has been replaced by the often abused 'mass rally' for the 'million being *this*' or 'protest for *that*' or 'demonstration for/against *the other*' so much that it is now 'Street Theater' in which the protesters are only demonstrating for themselves and have no greater depth in the Nation than their own, vehement attitudes.

And also notice that these nameless, faceless vandals and intimidaters have decided to take up "freedom fighting" that starts to verge on terrorism. They have decided to not only forgo civil outreach and discussion, but now turn to faceless violence for which they cannot be held accountable. That is what you do when you are not a *mass movement* but only represent yourselves: you take to the streets to intimidate Citizens by screaming, vandalism and acting violent. By being a pain in the ass, these individuals and their groups are seeking to enforce their views upon a populace that does not speak through them. They are not "The People", these are the ones who refuse to accept representative democracy in the form of a Republic. They wish to tear that down and put their own views in place of that of the common Citizenry.

That is not civil disobedience, but authoritarianism.

And that is no surprise coming from how much more radicalized the Left is becoming in Portland, OR. This was brought to light by the Seattle Weekly article that talked about a Portland 'organizer' coming to Seattle a story on 09 APR 2003 Violence and Protest which looks at one man's work to radicalize an already radical area:

Violence and Protest
A Portland activist brings his call for destruction to Seattle.
By Philip Dawdy

Does political violence have a legitimate place in the peace movement? Definitely, says Craig Rosebraugh, a Portlander who has emerged as one of Americas leading voices of radicalized dissent. The threat to the life of the planet is so severe that political violence must be understood as a viable option, Rosebraugh said during a Seattle lecture two weeks ago. Its a line of thought the longtime activist has trumpeted throughout the Northwest and across the Internet in recent months.

And when Rosebraugh talks, people listen and actat least they do in Portland. By most measures, Oregons largest city is now the center of protest in the Pacific Northwest, a stark contrast to the anemic scene in Seattle. At times, peace protests in Portland have turned into violent clashes with police, much to the shock of many activists there who prefer the old-school, nonviolent Ghandian approach.

Rosebraugh says its time for a new school.

On March 28, Rosebraugh delivered a three-hour-long address to about 40 people at downtown Seattles Independent Media Center. In it, he said that, by itself, nonviolent protest in America has never worked to change government policy, not during the civil rights movement and not during the Vietnam War. Then he sketched a condensed history of political violence as was used during the Algerian revolution of 19541962[sic]. Political violence works, he said, and its a tactic that should be adopted by the left.

The movement from peaceful demonstration to terrorist demonstration is not coincidental, and the outlook of Mr. Rosebraugh to bring terrorism to the radical Left in America is one that seeks to increase violence and repression in the name of 'social justice'. And as he loves Algeria post-colonialist times for its violence in the name of social justice. The FLN did, indeed, fight the French, get a cease-fire and then seize power in Algeria and outlaw the political opposition, which was mostly Communist at the time. By taking over all of the State mechanisms for the Party, the FLN used their power in a way that is reminiscent of the 1930's in Wiemar Germany. After a few years that turned purely Fascistic in outlook by 1965, which makes the end-date of 1962 a bit of a problem as the troubles didn't *stop* then. Arguing for minoritarian control in a State is not a good idea at all and usually turns repressive and authoritarian quickly, rather than slowly.

Over the next two decades unrest would slowly grow within Algeria and coalesce around Islamic terrorist groups seeking to supplant civil Fascism with the Islamic variety. The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) would be the main organization at this and would gain its own Islamic opposition, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) which would align itself with Iran and al Qaeda. al Qaeda would then create its *own* group from a breakaway part of the GIA known as the Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC), which would then act for furtherance of al Qaeda's goals, sometimes with GIA and other times not. It seems strange that a Leftist would leave out the subsequent history of Algeria and try to give it a definite 'stop date'.

But, when you are trying to gain revolution through violence, it is best not to point to the extremely bloody track record of such happenings throughout history. Because none of them have offered peace and democracy and increased civil rights, but, instead, a mixture of death, repression and destruction of society. Until they, in turn, are overthrown.

Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly can update his outlook a bit.

And report on things with just a bit more depth on the history involved of those wishing to take over the Nation.

Sphere: Related Content

To the House of the 110th Congress of the United States

Now, seeing as how the 110th Congress has put forth that things are not going well in Iraq and that the Nation can't continue on for 18 more months, I have recognized that the current Emergency Spending bill is highly defective.

So, as a more direct alternative I present you with what it *should* look like:

This, the 110th Congress of the United States, realizes that the long struggle in the war on terrorism has exhausted this Nation while fighting in Iraq. Collectively this war has so sapped our manpower that we must get illegal labor into this Nation to do the jobs which Americans can't do, which is all of them, save fighting for us as the NAFTA treaty only allows for the one-way movement of illegal labor and that is into the US, so we can't ship them anywhere.

This Congress has also recognized that the actual will to fight any conflict in the modern era beyond two terms of Congress is foreordained to failure, as we have now recognized with the poor state of everything in the Nation. The United States has so exhausted itself in this fight in Iraq that our economy is in shambles and We, the Congress of the United States, can no longer even find it to get ongoing spending to fight a war all together. We have asked the Treasury Department to get us two pennies to rub together, but they have run out of copper.

This Congress additionally sees that the ability of the United States to actually educate its population is impossible. In areas of math it has gotten to the point where this Congress no longer has the math skills to even figure out what a balanced budget looks like. Above and beyond that, the entire infrastructure from sewage lines to geostationary satellites is in such poor state that we are now using up the last of the sneakers in warehouses to walk around on and depending upon the mercies of tourists, who marvel at the ruins they behold in our once proud Nation, for handouts on a daily basis. As we have burned all the books, no one knows how to communicate by semaphore, nor can it be learned.

This Congress continues to see that the only thing that works is dissent and we now are forced to dissent from the dissenting dissenters who are dissenting on the war and to bow to their superior wisdom in their multitude, which contain some of the best hikers and campers on the planet, to realize that war is a prime cause of carbon dioxide and raises the global temperature because of the amount of dissent that is being generated by them on a global basis. Luckily, only children under the age of 17 are left, save for the Congress and President, as all the rest have been devoured by the awesome maw of fighting known as Iraq, so the actual National production of carbon dioxide by the United States falls well within Kyoto limits. We did have to burn the treaty papers a few weeks back to keep things warm, or else we would sign it.

This Congress regrets that 'The Mother of All Battles' was actually a wake-up call by Saddam Hussein to a real Deity that has, within Her Power, the ability to undo the entirety of the technological civilization that has been created since the dawn of mankind. And then She gets past the scolding stage and things get a bit rougher. As We did not know that, and that She has a waking up period of over a decade, we duly apologize for that inconvenience of having the corpses of Americans piled up 300 high around the entire perimeter of Iraq. "Making the Sea Red With Blood" was always assumed to be a metaphor and not a real noteworthy event that She can produce.

This Congress realizes that the exhausted Nation of the United States now has a voting population of exactly 536 people, in which the Electoral votes now outnumber the voting age population. As such we can only put forth that this Congress is unable to fight nor tend to its duties for the millions of children starving that need to be tended to and that all of this is fully beyond us at this point in time. In a year we might be able to actually change that situation, but as the current Authorization of the Use of Force in Iraq demands that any Citizens of fighting age be shipped over immediately, we also have come to recognize that we have run out of building materials for rafts to send them into combat with bow and arrow. We have, noticeably, run out of trees as the Nation has denuded itself of all trees and wildlife completely in this battle. It is very difficult to carve boats out of rock, as we have found out.

This Congress now tenders its Unconditional Surrender of the United States of America to the Republic of Iraq and ask that you send over anyone that might be able to fix things up a bit. We have entire States in need of population and the soil once was good for something, but now looks more like Iraq than anything else, so you should feel right at home here. We do ask for your kind mercy in accepting this surrender and calling off She Who is Red Soaked Beyond Compare.

If you know how.

Please?

Unanimously signed by this, the 110th Congress of the United States.


P.S. - Could you bring some milk and cookies?

Please note all defects in the current bill and amend it accordingly.

Sphere: Related Content

Congress loses the will for anything

In the great and grand wisdom of Congress to issue its Joint Reslolution for the Authorization of the Use of Force Against Iraq in 2002, the Congress set this Nation on a path to fighting a war to do many things. This was a very broad use of the War Powers for the Armed Forces of the United States, but did lack in many of the concepts of actually committing the Nation to a real war. In WWII, as an example, Congress stopped Civilian production of things like automobiles and stoves and such, to change the Nation to a war-time production capability for things like tanks, military aircraft, guns, bullets, and all sorts of things necessary to provide clothing and food to the draft military. Land was taken to create new Arsenals and other buildings to produce wartime needs, and even huge construction projects were begun, like the Pentagon. Further the entire National treasury was raided for all of its silver to be used, not as cash, but to create huge electromagnets to separate isotopes of uranium.

That is what Congress can do when it declares war, which is exactly what a Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force *is*.

The broad scope and sweep of this Congressional Authorization was to do *more* than unseat a tyrant and *more* than stop all WMD programs in Iraq. With ties between Iraq and a multitude of terrorist organizations known by Iraqi training and supplies to such organizations, the reach of Iraq into the terror realm was huge by the web of personal contacts seen. Captured Foreign Ministry archives from Iraq, plus documents captured in Afghanistan, show a far reaching ability of Iraq into far corners of the planet, to ensure that money, weapons, training and supplies could be afforded by Iraq against those that were seeking to limit its power. Just how far did this stretch? Well some points to ponder:

Center for Defense Information looking at FARC-IRA connectivity finds this in the report of 5 JUN 2002:

Long before Osama bin Laden’s Islamic organization achieved notoriety through its attacks in America on Sept. 11, 2001, other terrorist groups established operational bonds with their counterparts and sponsors across the world. Such collaboration flourished in the 1990s, and members of the international terrorism community are believed to have trained in many countries, often — but not always — with local government approval. The list of countries in which such training has occurred includes: Afghanistan; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Chile; Colombia; Iran; Iraq; Lebanon; Libya; Mexico; North Korea; Pakistan; Peru; Russia; South Africa; Sudan; Syria; and Turkey.

And then a bit later in:

According to Gen. Fernando Tapias, chairman of the Columbian Joint Chiefs of Staff, nationals from Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, Venezuela, Israel and Germany have been identified by FARC informants and deserters as carrying out recent training for the Columbian terrorist group.

Transnational terrorism is a diverse and multi-level support inter-network, which has multiple points of training of which Iraq was seen as involved in that during the 1990's and later. This can be seen in this report in the Independent story (H/t: Cheatseeking Missiles) Revealed: IRA bombs killed eight British soldiers in Iraq on 16 OCT 2005 showing IRA bomb technology working its way into Iraq today through various channels:

Eight British soldiers killed during ambushes in Iraq were the victims of a highly sophisticated bomb first used by the IRA, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

The soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they travelled through the country, died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched "sting" operation more than a decade ago.

This contradicts the British government's claims that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.

The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles in the early 1990s.

According to security sources, the technology for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents.

"We are seeing technology in Iraq today that it took the IRA 20 years to develop," said a military intelligence officer with experience in Northern Ireland.

[...]

But a former agent who infiltrated the IRA told The Independent on Sunday that the technology reached the Middle East through the IRA's co-operation with Palestinian groups. In turn, some of these groups used to be sponsored by Saddam Hussein and his Baath party.

The former agent added: "The photographic flashgun unit was replaced with infra-red and then coded infra-red, but basically they were variations of the same device. The technology came from the security forces, but the IRA always shared its equipment and expertise with Farc guerrillas in Colombia, the Basque separatists, ETA and Palestinian groups. There is no doubt in my mind that the technology used to kill our troops in Basra is the same British technology from a decade ago."

Even more alarming is the claim that the devices were supplied by the security services to an agent inside the Provisionals as part of a dangerous game of double bluff.

Notice the path for the technology is *from* a botched UK operation and went to the IRA and then to Palestinian organization and then to Iraq during the 1990's. The IRA shared that technology outwards to other organizations, too. No one said that learning terrorism was a one-way street, and once the technology is known it can be passed on via training to other organizations. Mind you the IRA worked on and *perfected* the technology, but those are mere variants of the original that weave a tangled web.

Saddam had been funding Palestinian terrorists for years, with money to the families of suicide bombers, slowly increasing his payouts from $10,000 to $30,000 just before the overthrow of the regime there. More than just Hamas or the PLO, were members of Islamic Jihad that also got this blood money. Thus the cooperative back-link can be used as means to get new information TO Iraq, be it INTEL or new weapons technology.

Within Iraq, itself, to go around the 'no fly/no drive zone' put in place to protect the Kurds, Saddam helped al Qaeda set up an affiliate there, from the MIPT Terror Knowledge Base:

Ansar al Islam

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamic fundamentalist organization headquartered in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq. Ansar was created in December 2001 from the merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam) and an unnamed group led by Mullah Krekar. Jund al-Islam was itself a conglomerate, formed from smaller groups that had broken off from the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan in the mid-nineties, such as Hamas (not the Palestinian group), the Second Soran Unit, and the Tawhid Islamic Front. Evidence suggests that al-Qaeda played a role in the formation of Ansar and that it continues to provide some funding and training. Ansar al-Islam's founding philosophy called for the establishment of a Kurdish theocracy under sharia, or strict Islamic law. Its radically religious stance put Ansar at odds with Kurdistan"s secular parties, such as the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). In February 2003, members of Ansar al Islam assassinated Shawkat Hajji Mushir, Kurdish parliamentarian and PUK founder, as he left a meeting. The gunmen also killed two officials accompanying Mushir, and then proceeded to open fire on the village of Oamesh Tapa where the meeting had taken place. The group has also been accused of involvement in a failed 2002 assassination attempt against Kurdish leader Barham Saleh.

The foundations of Ansar al-Islam are part Kurd, part Saddam, mostly al Qaeda and truly horrific. We ignore these connections at our peril, as they show a larger web of which Iraq was a *part* not the *whole*. We have some idea of the scope of what was being looked at when an Iranian born smuggler switched sides after the fall of the Taliban and told of his contacts with Saddam's regime in this 03 APR 2002 CSMonitor report by Scott Peterson:

Mr. Shahab spoke last weekend in an intelligence complex run by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of two rival armed Kurdish factions that control northern Iraq. He did not appear coerced to speak, and bore no physical signs that he had been mistreated since his arrest on May 16, 2000.

Still, shaking nervously and swallowing repeatedly, he at first refused to answer questions, saying that he was concerned about his family's safety in Iran. Two days later – after learning that part of his smuggling history and role in several killings had already been made public in the New Yorker magazine – he agreed to describe information that he had previously withheld, about Iraq's plan to target US warships.

"If this information is true, it would be in the interest of the US, and of all the world, for the US to be here to find out," says a senior Kurdish security officer involved in the case. Kurdish investigators were initially skeptical of some parts of Shahab's story. But the investigators say they later independently confirmed precise descriptions of the senior Iraqi officials Shahab says he met, by cross-examining a veteran Iraqi intelligence officer in their custody, and checking other sources.

Wearing a pale-green military jacket, dark-blue sweat pants and worn plastic sandals, Shahab softly recounts how he smuggled arms and explosives for Al Qaeda and the Iraqis. He at times flashes a boyish smile – the same disarming grin he uses in images on a roll of film he was carrying when arrested. Shahab also claims to be an assassin. The photos – shown to the Monitor – show Shahab killing an unidentified man with a knife. He grins at the camera as he holds up the victim's severed ear.

During a two-and-a-half-hour interview, Shahab describes the origin of the plot to blow up US warships, while his hands work nervously. He received an urgent phone call early in 2000, from a longtime Afghan contact named Othman, who told him to go to a meeting in Iraq. In February 2000, Shahab says he was taken to the village of Ouija, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein near Hussein's clan base at Tikrit, in north central Iraq.

At the meeting, he says, were two influential Iraqis, fellow clansmen of Saddam Hussein: Ali Hassan al-Majid – Mr. Hussein's powerful cousin and former defense minister – and Luai Khairallah, a cousin and friend of Hussein's notoriously brutal son Uday. Mr. al-Majid is known among Iraqi Kurds as "Chemical Ali," for his key role in the genocidal gassing and destruction of villages in northern Iraq that killed more than 100,000 Kurds in 1987 and 1988.

The Iraqis said they considered Shahab to be Arab, and not Persian, and could trust him because he was from Ahvaz, a river city in southwest Iran rich with smugglers and close to the Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Kuwait. It is known as "Arabistan" because of the number of Arabs living there.

Nine missions

Al-Majid and Mr. Khairallah spoke of the nine operations: "We've allocated $16 million already for you," Shahab remembers them telling him. "We start with the first one: We need you to buy boats, pack them with 500 kilograms of explosives each, and explode US ships in Kuwait and the Gulf."

The plan was "long term," Shahab says, and meant to be carried out a year or so later, in early 2001, after he had carried out another mission to take refrigerator motors to the Taliban. Each motor had a container attached holding an apparently important liquid unknown to Shahab. He says he doesn't know if all nine operations mentioned were similar to the boat plan, or completely different. Some were to take place in Kuwait.

The attack against a US vessel, Shahab recounts al-Majid and Khairallah explaining, was to be "a kind of revenge because [the Americans] were killing Iraqis, and women and children were dying" because of stringent UN sanctions, which the US backed most strongly. "They said: 'This is the Arab Gulf, not the American Gulf,' " Shahab recalls, referring to the large US naval presence in the area.

Not in and of itself confirmatory, but it is not the only reports that have come out of the area. As the story notes this plot sounds very similar to the failed USS The Sullivans plot and the later USS Cole plot. Also note that mission #2 to the Taliban was to smuggle in some sort of liquids encased inside refrigerator motors, items unlikely to be closely inspected for much of anything. So on to Johnathan Schanzer at The Weekly Standard in this 01 MAR 2004 article on Saddam's Ambassador to al Qaeda:

Before recounting details from my January 29 interview, some caution is necessary. Al-Shamari's account was compelling and filled with specific information that would either make him a skilled and detailed liar or a man with information that the U.S. public needs to hear. My Iraqi escort informed me that al-Shamari has been in prison since March 2002, that U.S. officials have visited him several times, and that his story has remained consistent. There was little language barrier; my Arabic skills allowed me to understand much of what al-Shamari said, even before translation. Finally, subsequent conversations with U.S. government officials in Washington and Baghdad, as well as several articles written well before this one, indicate that al-Shamari's claims have been echoed by other sources throughout Iraq.

When I walked into the tiny interrogation room, it was midmorning. I had just finished interviews with two other prisoners--both members of Ansar al Islam, the al Qaeda affiliate responsible for attacks against Kurdish and Western targets in northern Iraq. The group had been active in a small enclave near Halabja in the Kurdistan region from about September 2001 until the U.S. assault on Iraq last spring, when its Arab and Kurdish fighters fled over the Iranian border, only to return after the war. U.S. officials now suspect Ansar in some of the bloodier attacks against U.S. interests throughout Iraq.

My first question to al-Shamari was whether he was involved in the operations of Ansar al Islam. My translator asked him the question in Arabic, and al-Shamari nodded: "Yes." Al-Shamari, who appears to be in his late twenties, said that his division of the Mukhabarat provided weapons to Ansar, "mostly mortar rounds." This statement echoed an independent Kurdish report from July 2002 alleging that ordnance seized from Ansar al Islam was produced by Saddam's military and a Guardian article several weeks later alleging that truckloads of arms were shipped to Ansar from areas controlled by Saddam.

In addition to weapons, al-Shamari said, the Mukhabarat also helped finance Ansar al Islam. "On one occasion we gave them ten million Swiss dinars [$700,000]," al-Shamari said, referring to the pre-1990 Iraqi currency. On other occasions, the Mukhabarat provided more than that. The assistance, he added, was furnished "every month or two months."

I then picked up a picture of a man known as Abu Wael that I had acquired from Kurdish intelligence. In the course of my research, several sources had claimed that Abu Wael was on Saddam's payroll and was also an al Qaeda operative, but few had any facts to back up their claim. For example, one Arabic daily, al-Sharq al-Awsat, stated flatly before the Iraq war, "all information indicates [that Abu Wael] was the link between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime" but neglected to provide any such information. Agence France-Presse after the war cited a Kurdish security chief's description of Abu Wael as a "key link to Saddam's former Baath regime" and an "intelligence agent for the ousted president originally from Baghdad." Again, nothing was provided to substantiate this claim.

In my own analysis of this group, I could do little but weakly assert that Wael was "reportedly an al Qaeda operative on Saddam's payroll." The best reporting on Wael came from a March 2002 New Yorker article by Jeffrey Goldberg, who had visited a Kurdish prison in northern Iraq and interviewed Ansar prisoners. He spoke with one Iraqi intelligence officer named Qassem Hussein Muhammed, whom Kurdish intelligence captured while he was on his way to the Ansar enclave. Muhammed told Goldberg that Abu Wael was "the actual decision-maker" for Ansar al Islam and "an employee of the Mukhabarat."

"Do you know this man?" I asked al-Shamari. His eyes widened and he smiled. He told me that he knew the man in the picture, but that his graying beard was now completely white. He said that the man was Abu Wael, whose full name is Colonel Saadan Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Aani. The prisoner told me that he had worked for Abu Wael, who was the leader of a special intelligence directorate in the Mukhabarat. That directorate provided assistance to Ansar al Islam at the behest of Saddam Hussein, whom Abu Wael had met "four or five times." Al-Shamari added that "Abu Wael's wife is Izzat al-Douri's cousin," making him a part of Saddam's inner circle. Al-Douri, of course, was the deputy chairman of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council, a high-ranking official in Iraq's armed forces, and Saddam's righthand man. Originally number six on the most wanted list, he is still believed to be at large in Iraq, and is suspected of coordinating aspects of insurgency against American troops, primarily in the Sunni triangle.

Why, I asked, would Saddam task one of his intelligence agents to work with the Kurds, an ethnic group that was an avowed enemy of the Baath regime, and had clashed with Iraqi forces on several occasions? Al-Shamari said that Saddam wanted to create chaos in the pro-American Kurdish region. In other words, he used Ansar al Islam as a tool against the Kurds. As an intelligence official for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (one of the two major parties in northern Iraq) explained to me, "Most of the Kurdish fighters in Ansar al Islam didn't know the link to Saddam." They believed they were fighting a local jihad. Only the high-level lieutenants were aware that Abu Wael was involved.

Al-Shamari also told me that the links between Saddam's regime and the al Qaeda network went beyond Ansar al Islam. He explained in considerable detail that Saddam actually ordered Abu Wael to organize foreign fighters from outside Iraq to join Ansar. Al-Shamari estimated that some 150 foreign fighters were imported from al Qaeda clusters in Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Lebanon to fight with Ansar al Islam's Kurdish fighters.

I asked him who came from Lebanon. "I don't know the name of the group," he replied. "But the man we worked with was named Abu Aisha." Al-Shamari was likely referring to Bassam Kanj, alias Abu Aisha, who was a little-known militant of the Dinniyeh group, a faction of the Lebanese al Qaeda affiliate Asbat al Ansar. Kanj was killed in a January 2000 battle with Lebanese forces.

Al-Shamari said that there was also contact with the Egyptian "Gamaat al-Jihad," which is now seen as the core of al Qaeda's leadership, as well as with the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), which bin Laden helped create in 1998 as an alternative to Algeria's Armed Islamic Group (GIA). Al-Shamari talked of Abu Wael's links with Turkey's "Jamaa al-Khilafa"--likely the group also known as the "Union of Islamic Communities" (UIC) or the "Organization of Caliphate State." This terror group, established in 1983 by Cemalettin Kaplan, reportedly met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1997, and later sent cadres there to train. Three years before 9/11, UIC plotted to crash a plane into Ankara's Ataturk Mausoleum on a day when hundreds of Turkish officials were present.

Al-Shamari stated that Abu Wael sometimes traveled to meet with these groups. All of them, he added, visited Wael in Iraq and were provided Iraqi visas. This corroborates an interview I had with a senior PUK official in April 2003, who stated that many of the Arab fighters captured or killed during the war held passports with Iraqi visas.

Al-Shamari said that importing foreign fighters to train in Iraq was part of his job in the Mukhabarat. The fighters trained in Salman Pak, a facility located some 20 miles southeast of Baghdad. He said that he had personal knowledge of 500 fighters that came through Salman Pak dating back to the late 1990s; they trained in "urban combat, explosives, and car bombs." This account agrees with a White House Background Paper on Iraq dated September 12, 2002, which cited the "highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations."

Abu Wael also sent money to the aforementioned al Qaeda affiliates, and to other groups that "worked against the United States." Abu Wael dispensed most of the funds himself, al-Shamari said, but there was also some cooperation with Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Zarqawi, as the prisoner explained, was al Qaeda's link to Iraq in the same way that Abu Wael was the Iraqi link to al Qaeda. Indeed, Zarqawi (who received medical attention in Baghdad in 2002 for wounds that he suffered from U.S. forces in Afghanistan) and Abu Wael helped Ansar al Islam prepare for the U.S. assault on its small enclave last year. According to al-Shamari, Ansar was given the plan from the top Iraqi leadership: "If the U.S. was to hit [the Ansar base], the fighters were directed to go to Ramadi, Tikrit, Mosul . . . Faluja and other places." This statement agreed with a prior prisoner interview I had with the attempted murderer of Barham Salih, prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. This second prisoner told me that "Ansar had plans to go south if the U.S. would attack."

Al-Shamari said the new group was to be named Jund ash-Sham, and would deal mainly in explosives. He believed that Zarqawi and Abu Wael were responsible for some of the attacks against U.S. soldiers in central Iraq. "Their directives were to hit America and American interests," he said.

Al-Shamari claimed to have had prior information about al Qaeda attacks in the past. "I knew about the attack on the American in Jordan," he said, referring to the November 2002 assassination of USAID official Lawrence Foley. "Zarqawi," he said, "ordered that man to be killed."

Now here is a man high up in Saddam's regime retelling of his contacts with multiple terrorist organizations and naming names, dates, places and typifying the work done. It is unlikely, in the extreme, that any individual would have knowledge of the workings of multiple terrorist organizations nor be able to point out the role of individuals both within the ruling circle of Saddam and the external contacts unless that individual was inside that ruling circle.

In a 15 JAN 2003 article by Jonathan Schanzer of the Washington Institute on Ansar al-Islam and its ties to Saddam and al Qaeda looks at the overview of what is known about the organization. The depth of this goes beyond the mere few hundred thousand dollars, arms and ammunition being supplied by Saddam, and looks at the advanced chemical weapons training that was available to Ansar al-Islam from the Saddam regime.

This Voice of America article by Nick Simeone on 20 AUG 2002 highlights one of the captures of chemical weapons:

Administration officials tell reporters the Pentagon recently considered a secret military attack against the small Islamic Kurdish group known as Ansar al-Islam, operating in Iraq's northern no-fly zone and outside territory controlled by President Saddam.

It was there that U-S officials say they believed the group appeared to be experimenting with deadly chemical or biological agents tests similar to those recorded on video by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and obtained by C-N-N.

On those tapes, a dog appears to be suffering an agonizing death shortly after a poisonous substance is released.

It's unclear what motive the Iraqi group might have had for experimenting with poison gas but a U-S official tells the Associated Press some of its members trained in camps in Afghanistan and were in contact with al-Qaida.

Early in the war in Afghanistan, coalition troops found manuals for making chemical agents in abandoned al-Qaida strongholds in Kabul.

At the Pentagon Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated his belief that al-Qaida militants are in Iraq with Baghdad's knowledge -- but would not comment on any administration discussion concerning a strike on the suspected test site. But Administration officials who ask not to be identified say a decision was made not to target the facility after it was determined to be too rudimentary to pose a serious threat, one sufficient -- at this time -- to warrant the risks of a military operation to take it out.

From this the linkages for chemical weapons and supplies can be inferred to be a knowledge sharing arrangement with al Qaeda spreading knowledge to its affiliates, with the most likely source State being that of Saddam's regime. This is followed on 20 JAN 2003 at the Globalsecurity.org Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty archives with two reports:

ANSAR AL-ISLAM LEADER VOWS TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IF U.S. TROOPS INVADE IRAQ.

The new leader of Ansar Al-Islam, Mullah Muhammad Hasan, has said, "If America invades Iraq, we will attack its troops," London's "The Sunday Telegraph" reported on 12 January. Hasan's comments were made to Turkish journalist Namik Durukan in the town of Biyare (northern Iraq). Ansar apparently has stores of chemical agents, including cyanide gas, ricin, and aflatoxin. A former Iraqi Mukhabarat agent named Abu Wa'il is reportedly responsible for smuggling the chemical agents into northern Iraq. "Ansar has taken chemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war," according to Kurdish official Muhammad Aziz. "We feel the pressure of waiting in fear that [Ansar] will throw chemicals on us again and hell will return," Aziz added.

Other Kurdish officials have reported that the group is carrying out chemical-weapons testing on animals and humans, and has dispatched suicide bombers targeting Kurdish leaders on at least one occasion, according to the newspaper report. The 2,000-strong group claims to have killed 1,000 Kurdish peshmerga since last year. Durukan reported that he observed hundreds of foreign fighters in the region, many of them believed to be Taliban, walking the streets with their families in tow. In addition, Western intelligence officials observed members of the Iraqi Republican Guard in two Ansar-run villages last year, "The Sunday Telegraph" reported. (Kathleen Ridolfo)

AL-QAEDA DOCUMENT FOUND IN KABUL HIGHLIGHTS ANSAR AL-ISLAM STRUGGLE IN KURDISTAN.

A memorandum found in an Al-Qaeda guesthouse in Kabul highlighted the struggle for Kurdistan by Islamic militants. The memorandum, dated 11 August 2001 and from a group called the Iraqi Kurdistan Islamic Brigade, points out that the "Islamic Brigade [ketibe] has already succeeded around Halabja and will try to establish an Islamic order [Shariah]" according to a translation of the document appearing in "The New York Times" on 13 January.

The "Islamic Brigade", known as the Jund al-Islam but later changed its name to the Ansar al-Islam, has been fighting for control of an area around Halabja along the Iranian border with Iraq for two years (see "RFE/RL Iraq Report," 13 September 2001) against PUK forces. The memorandum asks the Islamic Unity Movement of Kurdistan to cut its links to the PUK and apply the Shari'a in areas which it controls.

Also, "Yekgirtu" of Irbil on 10 January carried an interview with Umar Abd-al-Aziz, a member of the Kurdistan Islamic Union Political Bureau, with regard to the anticipated changes in Iraq. While conceding the necessity of changing the regime, he stated: "We are not for foreign interference and the imposition of a military governor. We believe that such procedures will further complicate the political conditions in Iraq."

A recent article in "The New York Times" on 12 January highlights the fighting around Shinirwe Mountain which overlooks Halabja. The basic issue is not that the Ansar al-Islam has so many troops (the article assumes some 600), but that they would endanger U.S. troops if there is, in fact, an armed confrontation with Saddam Hussein. A U.S. official has confirmed that Ansar al-Islam is linked with Al-Qaeda. (David Nissman)

These things are not just spurious reports, they point to linkages of ongoing work from more than al Qaeda, which is on the run at this point in time, and sourcing chemicals and equipment is not something a band of rag-tag terrorists in the hinterland of Kurdish Iraq should be able to easily accomplish. In point of fact anyone wishing to say that this was not happening, that there are no connections and that a high level al Qaeda operative could get into Iraq and a hospital run by one of Saddam's sons and then *leave* and raise no suspicions in a police state, is then trying to back up Saddam's own spokesman, which does not leave one in good company.

Another individual cited for the connection of Ansar al-Islam and Saddam's regime is Qassem Hussein Mohamed, who claims to have worked Mukhabarat for the secret police in Iraq. This article from the Institute for Counter-Terrorism by Yael Shahar, looks into this with a report on 23 MAY 2003:

According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, new details on Ansar al-Islam’s connections with al-Qaida were provided by the interrogation of Rafid Ibrahim Fatah, an Iraqi Arab currently held by the PUK. Fatah was interviewed by the magazine’s reporter at a PUK security complex in Sulaymaniyah. He said that the group had received money once from Abu Qatada, a London cleric linked to bin Ladin’s European network. He also reported that an Ansar delegation had met with Mohammed Atef, alias Abu Hafas al-Masri, bin Ladin’s military chief, but that bin Ladin rarely met personally with such groups.

The PUK claims that Ansar al-Islam also has ties to agents of Saddam Hussein operating in northern Iraq. The CSMonitor quoted a long-time veteran of Iraqi intelligence as saying that the Iraqi government secretly provided cash and training to Ansar, in a bid to destabilize the “safe haven” and weaken armed Kurdish opponents:

Qassem Hussein Mohamed, who says he worked for Baghdad’s Mukhabarat intelligence for two decades, says that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has clandestinely supported Ansar al-Islam for several years. “[Ansar] and Al Qaeda groups were trained by graduates of the Mukhabarat’s School 999 — military intelligence,” says Mr. Mohamed, in the Sulaymaniyah interrogation room. Kurdish investigators say they are convinced — based on other, confirmable parts of his story — that he is a Mukhabarat agent. “My information is that the Iraqi government was directly supporting [Al Qaeda] with weapons and explosives,” he says. “[Ansar] was part of Al Qaeda, and given support with training and money.”

Qassem Mohamed compared Baghdad’s role to the overt help Iraq gives the anti-Iran Mujahideen e-Khalq forces, which are known to be completely controlled by Iraqi intelligence within Iraq’s borders. Several of the group’s leaders, he says, were on the Iraqi intelligence payroll, and served as liaisons between Baghdad and al-Qaida.

Observers point out that Saddam Hussein has a history of supporting proxy groups as a way to undermine his enemies. Supporting Ansar may provide him with a way to deal with his Kurdish enemies at very little cost to his own forces. “The government does not like this ‘safe haven,’ and wants to destroy and destabilize everyone, everywhere,” Mohamed says. “They are using [Ansar] as a base to destabilize northern Iraq, and assassinate and kill people. Baghdad will never give up supporting them.”

Thus, Ansar al-Islam is able to burn the candle at both ends, taking money and resources from the secular dictator Saddam in exchange for help against the Kurds of northern Iraq, while at the same time giving safe-haven to al-Qaida fighter in furtherance of the global Islamic Jihad.

Non-conventional weapons

Ansar al-Islam became front-page news last August, when reports surfaced that the group was experimenting with poison gas and toxins. According a report by ABC News, the experiments were ordered and financed by a “senior al-Qaida official, who was providing money and guidance from elsewhere in the region.”

Most of the experiments reportedly dealt with ricin, a deadly toxin derived from the castor bean. According to the report, members of Ansar al-Islam tested ricin water, as a powder, and as an aerosol. “They used it to kill donkeys, chickens and at one point allegedly exposed a man in an Iraqi market. They then followed him home and watched him die several days later, sources said.”

Yet another citation of training and support given by Saddam, purely secular, to al Qaeda, IslamoFascistic, to go against a common enemy. This is not surprising in the least, and it is those that propose otherwise that need to begin demonstrating how multiple individuals give separate and independent accounts of this from multiple directions that all cross-confirm each other.

Just after the Colin Powell speech at the UN Eric Felton interviewed Matt Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Mark Mazzetti of U.S. News and World Report; and Magnus Ranstorp of St. Andrew's University about a nexus of connections showing up between Iraq and al Qaeda on 15 FEB 2003:

Host: How solid is the evidence presented by the U-S that Zarqawi is heading up a cell of terrorists?

Ranstorp: Well, it's very clear that he has sought refuge in Iraq. In fact, he was previously in Iran. It became a hot political issue behind the scenes. During the time when Bush was declaring his "Axis of Evil" speech, Zarqawi was actually in Iran. It is, of course, very troublesome. I think that the strongest linkage is really with the assassination of Lawrence Foley in Jordan. Zarqawi is Jordanian. He has a great interest in trying to not only create problems for the Jordanians, but also his network stands out from influences in there. In terms of the case Powell has made, I think that it is a serious cause of concern. Zarqawi is a serious operative. I'm not so sure how strong the linkages are with the European cells, particularly because some of those arrests have been very fresh and it would be extraordinarily surprising to me if they'd been able to backtrack that back to the person of Zarqawi.

Host: What do we know about the London case involving ricin? Is there much information available at this point about that?

Ranstorp: Well, the ricin case is very troublesome. I think through the unraveling of the European network, beginning particularly with the French, there have been troublesome linkages between all these European countries and it will take a lot of time before we can establish a formal link between all these different groups. And I think that therefore we have to be very cognizant of this fact. I think the real question is: what degree of control does the Iraq regime exercise over Zarqawi? It is very clear that they have allowed him to operate, to use the infrastructure necessary to be able to cause some serious problems. But there is no real evidence of the fact that the Iraqi regime is controlling Zarqawi.

Levitt: Powell said specifically that that's not what they're claiming. But that of course the definition of state sponsorship does not necessarily include that you are operating the cell. Tolerating [and] providing refuge [to terrorists] is sufficient. And I think one of the reasons that we know so much about this network including its links to Europe is because of the arrest of one key Zarqawi lieutenant in particular, who in a really interesting demonstration of lack of being careful, right after the assassination of Foley couldn't help himself and called one of the assassins on a satellite phone from his car as he was leaving Iraq towards the Turkish and Syrian borders to congratulate the assassins and said: "I'm in my car and I'm driving out of Iraq." And he was subsequently captured. So the interrogations of this particular lieutenant who is senior player are providing a great deal of information. And as I understand it, is one of the key issues that led Powell and the U-S government to decide to include the Zarqawi material to convince them of the veracity of the link.

Host: Mark Mazzetti?

Mazzetti: Yeah, I mean, I think it is important to point out this purported link between al-Qaida and Iraq -- at least according to U-S officials, really has been gathering evidence, strong evidence, only during the last few weeks or couple of months. I mean, back in November and October when we were asking about this link, you talked to people and they said, well, we don't have a whole lot of this evidence. This guy Zarqawi, we think was in Iraq. It's really within the last, you know, few weeks where, as Matt was saying, they've gotten more and more interrogations and they think this link is stronger and stronger, as we saw, because Powell would actually say it publicly. So, at least according to them, the case gets stronger by the day.

Levitt: There is another detainee that Powell mentioned specifically in his remarks to the United Nations, again, where he said a member of the Zarqawi's network admitted to dispatching terrorists to Europe to conduct chemical attacks.

[..]

Host: Magnus Ranstorp, you mentioned Iran before and as Matt Levitt expanded on that to talk about how groups that traditionally were thought not to have shared interests -- certainly Iran and Iraq, no love is lost between the two -- and the idea that bin Laden would be opposed to Saddam Hussein because of Saddam Hussein being very secular. Are those traditional barriers between cooperation falling down?

Ranstorp: Well, I think Matt was making the point earlier that the traditional boundaries between ideological grounds are not a very valuable tool today to look at whether groups would cooperate or not. We're talking about individuals who are working together. And I think a very worrisome signal came around May and the summer when you had a conference of these forces, including Zarqawi's associates, making an alliance with Hezbollah, making alliances and going through Syria and Lebanon and trying to make actually, a mega, catastrophic terrorist event inside of Israel. We should not forget that prior to this, one of the al-Qaida targets was an Israeli tourist resort as well as trying to shoot down an airliner. And I think that there has been an effort to try to include Israel in this equation. I think that will influence very much the ferocity of an al-Qaida campaign and like-minded associates that will possibly continue to try to inflict their pain and suffering against the United States. Let me just make one other comment. Previously [we talked] about the weapons of mass destruction. It's not only Iraq. I mean, Iraq had this conference of forces between Saddam and W-M-D and Zarqawi, but a major concern that even comes outside of this war with Iraq, and that is the expectation from security forces, particularly in Europe, that if you're talking about radiological weapons, they will not come from Iraq, but a lot of them from the former Soviet Union.

Host: And is there evidence that al-Qaida has been trying to get its hands on such weapons?

Ranstorp: Well, we know Chechnya is becoming a new Afghanistan. I think our attention, even after Iraq, will be upon it. It's going to focus our attention toward that area. There's a lot of radiological material there. There's the expertise. Even certain terrorist groups have been casing nuclear warhead facilities in the former Soviet Union. So there's a great concern that they may come through that direction as well. And of course, Zarqawi has links to that region in this network and we should be equally concerned about that area as well.

Host: Matt Levitt, Magnus Ranstorp mentions this meeting that was held with Zarqawi and Hezbollah. What connections are there among Zarqawi, Hezbollah, Iraq, and Hamas?

Levitt: Well, I don't think you can map out a clear organizational chart and give titles and everything and say exactly what the relationship is. Again, it's a network, and like Magnus said, it's relationships. And they have built relationships that they will call on. People in the administration talk about ad hoc tactical, specifically on training and logistical support, relationships between members of al-Qaida and Hezbollah. Hamas is somewhat of a different story operationally, but even between groups like al-Qaida and Hamas that don't have operational links, there are very significant financial and logistical links. And if you look at many of the banks and the front organizations and the preferred methods of raising, transferring and laundering funds, many of those systems are the same, like the al-Taqwa banking system, which was originally shut down after September 11th for its links to al-Qaida, but has subsequently been linked very strongly to Hamas and many others. The director of the C-I-A, George Tenet, said in response to a question about the fact that Sheik Yassin, the head of Hamas, has come out and said in an open letter on February 7th, in the event of a war with Iraq, all good Muslims should conduct attacks against the West and specifically the United States. The director said, indeed, the time when we used to make [distinctions] between terrorist organizations is over. And I think that's very, very significant. These are different groups. They're not all necessarily doing the exact same thing the exact same way. There are links between them. There are relationships between their members and they are significant.

[..]

Host: Magnus Ranstorp, with regard to Ansar al-Islam operating in the north of Iraq, we recently had the assassination of a Kurdish parliament leader there. Is there any evidence linking Ansar al-Islam to Iraqi operatives?

Ranstorp: Well, this is alleged by Powell. I'm not so sure. You know, I spoke to several individuals as well, long before Ansar al-Islam came on the radar screen. In fact, very few Ansar al-Islam operatives have been actually to Afghanistan to train there. There were efforts by al-Qaida before, about a year, a year and a half ago to try to connect to Ansar al-Islam. So it's a very difficult area. Powell is claiming that the Iraqi intelligence have operatives in there. It's entirely feasible. But certainly they will become one of the first casualties once the war will commence.

Ansar al-Islam had been morphing prior to that, of course, but the stature it suddenly gains in a short period of time and continued support leading up to the war is something very difficult to pin directly on al Qaeda as it was being pushed out of Afghanistan. At some point al Qaeda did decide to leave the Afghanistan situation up to the Talibe, so it would be natural to expect a shifting of resources. Also brought up is that Abu Musab al Zarqawi was running his own independent affiliates but took up with Ansar al-Islam under directions of al Qaeda. By 25 MAR 2003 RFE/RL reports on what was happening in the North of Iraq, also looking at some of the others then known to be in the area:

COALITION FORCES TARGET ANSAR AL-ISLAM.

Coalition forces hit an Ansar Al-Islam stronghold close to the Iranian border in northeastern Iraq overnight on 21-22 March, AP reported. The group controls about 18 villages close to the Kurdish village of Halabjah. According to AP, five coalition missiles hit an Ansar base; "The Christian Science Monitor" reported on 24 March, however, that Ansar villages, as well as villages held by the Kurdistan Islamist Group (KIG) -- a.k.a. Komala Islamiyya -- were struck in two waves of attacks. The move appeared to precede a ground offensive launched by Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) opposition forces. "We have begun attacking their positions with rockets," one PUK official said on 22 March, adding, "There is no way that we can move south during the liberation with them in place; we have to be able to protect our backs," Reuters reported. Retaliation appeared to come quickly -- a car bomb was detonated at a Kurdish checkpoint outside Halabjah on 22 March, killing three Kurds, an Australian cameraman, and the bomber, and injuring another two dozen people, "The Christian Science Monitor" reported on 24 March. The United States has linked Ansar Al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. The KIG, headed by Shaykh Bapir Ali, is less radical than Ansar, and has been operating under an agreement with the PUK, receiving a monthly stipend of $250,000 from the PUK, according to "The Christian Science Monitor."

Meanwhile, London-based "Al-Sharq al-Awsat" reported on 20 March that as many as 2,500 "Lebanese fundamentalists" and approximately 700 "Algerian volunteers" have been residing in camps inside Iraq for the past six months. The fighters reportedly entered Iraq with the permission of the Iraqi regime. The Lebanese and Algerians, along with Al-Qaeda-related groups, are reported to have an agreement with the Iraqi government, which allows them to undertake suicide operations, against U.S. troops in northern Iraq, according to "Al-Sharq al-Awsat." The fighters would operate "not under the Ba'ath Party banner" though, as they "refuse to fight under the banner of a secular party."

Speaking on the presence of "volunteers," Iraqi Information Minister al-Sahhaf told reporters on 24 March: " The volunteers are numerous. They are from our glorious Arab nation, the friends, Muslims, and the world. They are too many. We welcome all of them. God willing, they will serve to demonstrate a sign of solidarity between the Arabs and all free men in the world," Al-Jazeera reported. Iraqi officials have made several statements in recent weeks regarding offers from Arab and Muslim volunteers to fight on the behalf of Iraq. However, it should be noted that the Iraqi government, and specifically President Hussein, has been criticized by Muslim religious leaders for decades for its secular, anti-Islamist stance. Only in recent years has the Iraqi leader attempted to make use of religious rhetoric to appeal to the Iraqi people and Muslims worldwide for support for Iraq. (Kathleen Ridolfo)

The question is not *if* Saddam was providing safe haven, training and support to multiple terrorist organizations. The question is how extensive were the contacts, what was passed along them and what are the subsequent movements of knowledge outwards into the larger transnational terror internetwork?

This slowly brings us right back around to Congress. As so many are fond of stating, this is a 'Long War'... and everyone loves to think of the Cold War paradigm. There is no equivalent of the USSR in the world of Transnational Terrorism: no such thing exists. Standing up to this is more than just manning military bases, buying weapons and accumulating vast numbers of nuclear devices on a State-to-State showdown. Without an opposition State there is no defined military organization to go against. What can be seen, however, is that States that have abundant natural resources that are able to utilize such for commerce can become not only State supporters for terrorists or, especially in 'failed' or weak States, harbor terrorists and be unable to do anything about them. When State based sponsorship takes place, the full panoply of an organized government utilizing its power to arm, direct and even operate terrorist groups allows for the long term lethality of those groups to increase. Iran has been doing that for decades and now has affiliates in Lebanon, Bosnia, Algeria, Chechnya, Argentina, Venezuela and elsewhere. The Iranian threat with WMDs is not as a Nation, but in using that distributed affiliate operation to gain such weapons and increase their lethality by two or three orders of magnitude *per incident* if not higher. Iraq not coming *clean* on WMDs, continuing operations of programs to support WMD production and working directly with a broad gamut of terrorists was utilizing that network to achieve their State-based ends. Organizations like al Qaeda that wish to end Nation States, will utilize any means it can get to continue its goals and target Nations and Peoples so as to remove such Nations and support for *having* Nations.

When an organization like FARC can run and continue to expand a military operation based on narco-terrorism, plus some other sidelines like kidnapping for ransom and extortion, the threat seen from Nations able to supply multiple times the amount of ready cash leads to far worse situations that are endemic in nature. Strong Nation States that can ensure their borders and enforce the rule of law internally, while working with other Nations to marginalize and hunt down and *kill* these organizations and remove other Nations from supporting this must happen. The system of Nation States was formed to allow internal religious decisions but to not enforce religion upon individuals. When Nations move *from* that, as is the case of Saudi Arabia, they may get a 'purity of religion' but they also get a Totalitarian State. The Western conception of the Westphalian State requires that minimal freedom for individuals, even if few other liberties apply. When the Congress moves to say that fighting for this is not worth the cost in blood or money, they are saying that they are willing to cash out the Nation State system. If the United States cannot promote liberty and take down those that would seek to end the Nation State system as a whole, than no matter how mighty the military force the US has, can this Nation stand. When the rest of the world starts to sink into Imperial mud, the ties that the US has will drag this Nation down with them.

While the US may stand apart as a Nation, we stand *with* the entire community of Nations.

Removing dictators and tyrants requires the US to help those who had been under such rule to stand up for themselves so they can protect themselves thereafter. That is a good and honorable way to deal with the world, and once those we have helped to stand up on their own can do so, then we will accept their judgment on the worthiness of our work.

Congress and much of those that support it have decided that such work cannot be done by the Nation.

When the United States declares war, we turn from such fights at our peril.

But I will say this: if the President accepts the terms and conditions given then there is one, and only one option in a war we will not fight.

We should surrender to Iraq.

I think they would understand that by this point in time.

Because Congress no longer has the will to allow for victory, and so the only other option is defeat.

And I think they are better *losers* than the current crop of Americans are *winners*.

When you go to war those are your choices, as the Spartans remind us.

There are long term consequences to defeat and the US has been dying a slow death since that last defeat.

This Congress wishes to kill the Nation with another such defeat.

And civilization along with it.

Sphere: Related Content

Mercenary Congress

mercenary

mer·ce·nar·y

adj.

1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.

From Gateway Pundit on some of the Pork packed into the Iraqi military funding bill in the House:

Aquaculture Operations: Provides $5 million for payments to "aquaculture operations and other persons in the U.S. engaged in the business of breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish" (such as shellfish, oysters and clams) to cover economic losses incurred as a result of an emergency order issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on October 24, 2006.

Spinach: Provides $25 million for payments to spinach producers that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the FDA Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006.

Hurricane Citrus Program: Provides $100 million to provide assistance to citrus producers (such as orange producers) in the area declared a disaster related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
NASA: Provides $35 million to NASA, under the "exploration capabilities" account, for "expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina."

Corps of Engineers: Provides $1.3 billion to Corps of Engineers for continued repairs on the levee system in New Orleans.

FEMA: Provides $4.3 billion for disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill would eliminate the state and local matching requirements for certain FEMA assistance (in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis) in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, and provides that the federal portion of these costs will be 100%.

HUD Indian Housing: Provides $80 million in tenant-based rental assistance for public and Indian housing under HUD. Crop Disaster Assistance: Provides roughly $3 billion in agriculture assistance to crop producers and livestock owners experiencing losses in 2005, 2006, or 2007 due to bad weather.

Shrimp: Provides $120 million to the shrimp industry for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.

Frozen Farmland: Provides $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland damaged by freezing temperatures during a time period beginning on January 1, 2007 through the date of enactment.

Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program: Provides $283 million for payments under the MILC program, to extend the life of the program for one year, through September 30, 2008. MILC provides payments to dairy farmers when milk prices fall below a certain rate.

Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.

FDA Office of Women's Health: Provides $4 million for the Office of Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Provides $60.4 million for fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses for assistance related to "the commercial fishery failure." According to the Committee Report, this funding is to be used to provide disaster relief for those along the California and Oregon coast affected by the "2006 salmon fishery disaster in the Klamath River."

Avian Flu: Provides $969 million for the Department of HHS to continue to prepare and respond to an avian flu pandemic. Of this funding, $870 million is to be used for the development of vaccines.

Secure Rural Schools Act (Forest County Payments): Provides $400 million to be used for one-time payments to be allocated to states under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This program provides a funding stream (known as forest county payments) to counties with large amounts of Bureau of Land Management land, in order to compensate for the loss of receipt-sharing payments on this land caused by decreased revenue from timber sales due to environmental protections for endangered species. The authorization for these forest county payments expired at the end of FY 2006, and counties received their last payment under the Act in December 2006.

LIHEAP: Provides $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Vaccine Compensation: Provides $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine, which is a flu vaccine. Payment to Widow of Rep. Norwood: Provides $165,200 to Gloria W. Norwood, the widow of former Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), an RSC Member, who passed away last month. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), Congress provided $162,100 to Doris Matsui, the widow of former Rep. Robert Matsui.

Capitol Power Plant: Provides $50 million to the Capitol Power Plant for asbestos abatement and safety improvements. Liberia: Provides that money appropriated for FY 2007 for the Bilateral Economic Assistance program at the Department of Treasury may be used to assist Liberia in retiring its debt arrearages to the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank.

SCHIP: Provides $750 million to the Secretary of HHS to provide assistance to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) "shortfall states,", in the form of an amount "as the Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall." This provision is direct spending that is essentially capped at $750 million and designated as an emergency to avoid PAYGO constraints.

Minimum Wage Increase: Increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15-per-hour to $7.25-per-hour over two-plus years-a 41% increase. Yields $16.5 billion in private-sector costs over five years.

Tax Increases and Shifts: Implements several tax increases and shifts, including: denying the lowest maximum capital gains tax rate for certain minors and adults, extending the suspension of interest payments due to the IRS, and adjusting the deadlines for corporate estimated tax payments. Costs taxpayers $1.380 billion over the FY2007-FY2017 period.

All so very good for an Armed Forces sustainment bill, isn't it? These all so fall in line with the military things that the Congress has sole oversight upon, don't they? Here is what all of this should meet for the Armed Forces from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, in part:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Are we going to be giving the military ALL of this to run? Of course not! These are bribes to get votes for a bill that is so complex that even the backers cannot understand it...

[John] ROBERTS [Late Edition CNN host]: Joe Biden, how do you pass or enforce something you can't even explain?

You see it is an 'Emergency Bill' with various things that have been in it being debated for months or longer... and some of it is to pay out to an industry that was caught with e-coli in its midst from ABC4 and H/t to Instapundit:

"I understand this is the way our legislature works, but I think it's just sickening," Michelle Matthews of Eagle Mountain told ABC 4 News. She's upset because one of the earmarks reimburses California spinach farmers $25 million for losses they suffered. The losses came when they were unable to sell their crops last fall after Americans got sick and died from e-coli bacteria in a batch of tainted spinach.

Some of that spinach found its way to the Matthew's dinner table. Michelle got sick, but her daughter, Arabella, almost died. Arabella was just two-years-old when she came down with e-coli. She spent nine days at Primary Children's Hospital, had an operation and was on kidney dialysis.

The Matthews have about $60,000 in medical bills now, mostly covered by insurance. She says the family has been assured the spinach grower's insurance company would pay the bills, but no money has arrived. Then Mrs. Matthews read that the spinach farmers stand to gain $25 million from the Iraq war spending bill.

"To reimburse them for making people ill is just inappropriate," Mrs. Matthews said. "It's insane that my tax dollars and the tax dollars of my family are going to pay these spinach farmers for their bad spinach for things that were their fault in the first place."

Oh, my! No insurance carriers willing to cover the spinach industry against this sort of thing? So we are now going to cover for corporate incompetence with Democratic approval. And far be it from me, but NASA, HUD, FEMA, FDA and NOAA all get their very own budgets which can be passed in a timely manner if Congress would start on them *now* instead of waiting forever and a day to get off its butts. Where is the "Emergency" for Hurricane Katrina or a re-zoning of Bureau of Land Management land that happened in 2000? Isn't the Dept. of Agriculture already spending enough on crop subsidies and such, to a tune of $12 billion or more per year, and that is AFTER "emergency" set-asides and such?

In fact what we are seeing is vote buying for pay in a time of war.

To try and demoralize the Armed Forces and embolden the enemies of the Union.

One does not need to fight to be a mercenary: bought and paid for to help foreign enemies against the United States.

And where will the leader of the House of Representatives *be*?

At a $28,500 per head fund raiser in NYC.

Because, in Washington, money talks and the Nation suffers because those elected will not forgo cash to secure it.

And a good mercenary is *always* looking for more pay, no matter who the supplier is.

Sphere: Related Content

Geopolitics, spoiling attack, and missing the point

My thanks to Jules Crittenden for his work and pointing out the article by George Friedman as he has put forth an interesting essay at Stratfor on Geopolitics and the U. S. Spoiling Attack, 20 MAR 2007. Here he reviews the history of US involvement in warfare and conflicts and looks to see if conclusions can be drawn from past conflicts to this current war against terrorism and the fighting in Iraq. And with his opening paragraph I already have some problems with the outlook being offered, as the terms of the view are far too limited in scope and breadth. (Bolding mine throughout)

The United States has now spent four years fighting in Iraq. Those who planned the conflict never expected this outcome. Indeed, it could be argued that this outcome represents not only miscalculation but also a strategic defeat for the United States. The best that can be said about the war at the moment is that it is a strategic stalemate, which is an undesired outcome for the Americans. The worst that can be said is that the United States has failed to meet its strategic objectives and that failure represents defeat.

Four years, as these things go, is trivial on a counter-insurgency campaign against a committed foe. While I do agree that those who planned the war did not expect the outcome we are at in the present, neither did the naysayers expect this outcome nor anything like it. The absolute inability of the Elite political class to actually have some basis for historical scope and knowledge of how wars and conflicts are fought and what these modern foes have as outlook and scope means that *anything* that is done, even *nothing*, is not done upon a basis of actually trying to understand the problem and solve it. We are left with haphazard trouble-shooting, which is great for shooting the trouble but not so good at addressing the long-term basis of the conflict we now encounter.

Thus any action, I argue, that does not address the underlying factors of the type of enemy, the strategic outlook he has, the multifaceted tactics used, and the generalized goals that are the point of those things, has no chance of long-term success. The basis for the actual war and anti-war sentiment are *both* wrongly founded and misplaced and *both* are lethal to the long-term functioning of the Republic. Make no mistake about it the conflict in Iraq must lead to something better than what was there, give more freedom and liberty to the people there, and also give them the capability to defend themselves. That may or may not break the 'old order' of the Middle East, but it will put every despot and tyrant in the area on notice that they are no longer the sole holders of the keys to National power.

Here the 20th century 'Realists' in Foreign Policy have so neglected what Nation States are and what they mean to the People within them, that we are left without the mental tools to even begin addressing the current conflict that neither starts nor ends in Iraq. The absolute short-sightedness of limiting outlook TO the 20th century for solutions in post-war concepts not only is misguided, but in concentrating on the latter half of that bloody century ignores the complete failure of the early part of the century by powerful Nations. There has been no ability by the political, military, economic or foreign policy elite structure in the US to do this, instead adhering to late 20th century dogma that has no solutions to this current predicament.

Victory, as I have examined earlier, is something that is built and maintained continually, not created once and then shoved into a corner. When we cannot recognize that a civil society has been so degraded by authoritarian regimes as to not exist in a way that we understand in the US, then we have an extreme problem in even telling ourselves that the world can be so horrific as to do that to a People. Using *just* the putting down of the Moro insurgency in the Philippines after the war ended there in 1901 and the next decade of hard, bitter and horrific fighting that went on points to the fact that trying to put a definite time-frame on victory against insurgencies is not only difficult but near impossible. That is not a reason to go hide under a bed, but a fact of warfare and commitment to ideals that must be dealt with and recognized. Throw in a society that has been completely abused so that the tribe or even the extended family is the most trustworthy basis of government, and you have something that was not even *examined* before going into Iraq. And even worse is the inability of those doing the look at counter-insurgency and Nation Building at the US failure in Haiti 1915-34. But these things require dropping this idea that the latter half of the 20th century is the ONLY place to look for solutions to our modern problems, and that, apparently, is just not *done*.

My own personal estimates for how long it would take to get something like a democratic situation *going* in Iraq was in the 8-15 year timeframe, and I considered anyone who was looking at less to be pushing a fantasy. The Citizen Soldiers of the United States have achieved far, far more than I had ever thought them capable of doing and have so totally inverted all previous thinking on counter-insurgency that had left failing paradigms as the ONLY ones, that the enemies we have cannot properly counter them. Four years is only *not* a long time for that, but the breadth and depth of changes to actually get a society knitting itself back together in Iraq is something nearing on the fantastical. And this is failure?

Failure of outlook, yes. When one examines what is happening and when what you expect is not happening you look, revise and adjust to those circumstances and try crafting something new to go forward. The Elites of the West have failed utterly in not only the pre-war times, but in adjusting to warfare and its changing outlook in this modern era. If the outlook itself is not properly based, then the defeat of it is a given. And that has happened across-the-board with the modern Elite structure and its outlook on warfare and society. The harsh reality of the situation in Iraq is that full-spectrum failure of the polarized political class in the US and the West. It is, most pointedly, NOT a failure of the warfighter to figure out and execute a winning tactical regime nor to put in place a longer term structural foundation for a future Iraq that is NOT a dictatorship. What has failed is the Elite of the West to accept that these are worthy goals worth achieving and supporting for the long-term.

Now looking at what Mr. Friedman uses for conceptions of US Foreign Policy of the 20th century, he, too, concentrates on the latter half of that century and restricts his overview to that of the Republic that had grown mighty into a Cold War superpower. Needless to say the non-successful ventures that he cites are then further restricted to the paradigms of thought of the era involved, instead of looking to the full capability of the Nation State and asking why no other means were employed.

From a Jacksonian viewpoint Korea and Vietnam were not *won* because the US was unwilling to actually risk pissing off the USSR or China. That said the limitations on outlook in both of those areas is obvious as, in the first instance, China actually entered the Korean War on the side of Korea and faced the US with a de facto declaration of war there. The US quavered at flexing its military might and in that doing forced a stalemate there because of that lack of resolve. And in the Vietnam war the absolute inability of the US to actually put forward this lovely idea of *taking and holding enemy territory* so as to DEFEAT THEM led to a loss of resolve. And as Jacksonians see seriousness in warfare as paramount and primary to securing the Nation, by not actually doing those things to get a victory in either of those conflicts led to a mistrust by that segment of the population with the political parties and their Elites. You do not start fighting unless you are serious enough to see it through to victory, come hell or high water.

In Cuba the inability of the Kennedy Administration to actually provide the massive airpower that was an inherent part of the Bay of Pigs invasion doomed it to failure. It would have been wiser for the Kennedy Administration not to waffle on warfare there as that would lead to no good in the long run as is noted. The grand idealism of the Kennedy Administration was already being cashed out with that, even taking the Cuban Missile Crisis into account. And that breaking of faith, then, engendered a greater divide as the political Elites could not manage the war in Vietnam and led to an isolationist, leftist view taking hold in the Nation.

When looking at Iran and the idea of 'containment' I find that the proposal has no rational basis because 'containment' requires a rational Nation State basis to operate. Lee Harris goes over this for al Qaeda, and their fantasy ideology, but that of the regime in Iran is no less fantastical in outlook or conception and does not adhere to the basis of the Nation State as something useful to its long term outlook. Here, again, the failure of the Elite power structure in the US is evident by the inability to actually see that Iran has goals and objectives that are not driven by Nation State paradigms, but by religious imperial ones. To that end Iran creates Islamic Foreign Legions like Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army, amongst others, and spreads those across the globe so as to put into place a long-term architecture to undermine Nation States even if Iran is overthrown. The inability of Iran to maintain what, to Western eyes, is the obvious and vast revenue source of oil sales and, instead, to slowly and systematically neglect it so as to create a long term societal problem in Iran points to a lack of contact with this real world of Nation States and economics and a more fantastical view of things unassociated with them driving their goals and policies. Strangely I don't hear much from anyone in the Elite political structure much of anywhere on the planet willing to address this.

To point to these places and say they are 'strategic reversals' when they are, in point of fact, lack of will to address the problems at hand is a misreading of what is being reversed against. The more traditional view of fighting wars to *win* and defeat enemies hasn't failed because it has never been applied. The replacement to them HAVE failed and repeatedly and to no good ends at all. That is, indeed, a 'strategic reversal', but one against an outlook that does not adhere to the seriousness of warfare and the implications of not fighting to a victory or peace with an honorable foe that will stand by their agreements. Apparently this 'something else' that we have been applying doesn't work all that well.

And then Mr. Friedman goes on to cite the schools of thought that grew up and the outlooks they have. Remember that is present tense: people *still* adhere to these things, even after they have failed. I will do my best to summarize these schools of thought that he cites:

1) "U.S. power does not rest on these politico-military involvements but derives from other factors, such as economic power."

Here he does not address what this school of thought believes that US power rests upon. Yes! Put forth an idea that is in its negative form and do not give the positive of it so we can know the entire outlook. The full force of this is the quaint notion that liberal economies get liberal societies and democracy. In point of fact the US was founded as a liberal society *first* that gained economic competence via democracy and then gained in power because it is based upon democracy NOT upon economics. This has had serious consequences in not recognizing that money is not freedom: freedom is freedom. A man free to make his way will work hard to avoid starvation and then find better ways to do things so as to earn more with less work. Handing that in a top-down way offers no society nor social structure, just the artifacts from those who have been inventive and hard working. This outlook is one that is contrary to the American experience but is used to open up markets rather than to open up minds.

2) "The United States has been extraordinarily fortunate that, despite its inability to use politico-military power effectively and its being drawn consistently into stalemate or defeat, exogenous forces have saved the United States from its own weakness. In the long run, this good fortune should not be viewed as strategy, but as disaster waiting to happen."

The paradigm that the USSR learned was that the way to defeat the US was via proxy war and civil apathy. Vietnam showed that the US was unwilling to actually *fight* a real war and that caused political dissolution within the Nation which was then exploited by the USSR on a global scale to press the US and the West hard. Those pushing this ideal are still serving that end, of defeating the Nation, but no longer have outlook towards their original goal of Communism, instead putting Transnational Progressivism in its place. Here the diminution of the State's ability to actually tend to its needs via military means is being attacked so as to remove it as a legitimate component of the Nation State and make warfare open to *anyone*. That is having a high global death toll attached to it as a mode of thought. Again, Mr. Friedman wishes to ignore the assertive positive and only present the abstracted negative.

3) "The wars mentioned previously were never as significant as they appeared to be -- public sentiment and government rhetoric notwithstanding. These conflicts drew on only a small fraction of potential U.S. power, and they always were seen as peripheral to fundamental national interests."

Yet again, the actual assertive school of thought underlying this is not presented. These are the ideas that the true measure of the Nation is in its economy which is only true in the instance of Total War. The conflicts that Mr. Friedman presents were *never* backed as Total War concepts, even when sold as protecting an Ally in the region or asserting the freedom of States in the Western Hemisphere to be free from outside influence. When he discounts the 'rhetoric' used to get involved in these conflicts, Mr. Friedman puts forward that the rhetoric was disingenuous to START WITH and that the US had no intention of actually following through on its word given to Friends and Allies.


Now for the recap of the schools of thought:

1) Hamiltonian in conception. By asserting that money is liberty, the attempt to ignore the fact that liberty is liberty and allows one to work for a better life is ignored. Hamiltonians are great at building up expensive 'arsenals of democracy' that never get used at high profit to corporations. We do forget that the business of America is small business, not huge corporations, and that the vitality of liberty is expressed through the small business community of the Nation that is built upon freedom and democratic ideals.

2) Wilsonian in conception: The US as only one Nation has to adhere to what all other Nations put forth so that there can be an external order that will guide the US. Whenever the US tries to use power outside of that framework it is doomed to failure.

3) Jeffersonian in conception: The wars that the US has gotten into are minor in contrast to the expansiveness of human liberty. The fundamental National Interest is to safeguard our own liberty, first, and support it elsewhere. So sorry if you are a Friend or Ally that actually believes that the US will HELP YOU in a minor tussle in which you will end up dead but does not put at peril our liberty. Yours doesn't matter to us.


What are the fallout from these three main streams of US political thought from their activities? Mr. Friedman gives us those, too, which I will break out a bit.

Put somewhat differently, there is the liberal view that the Soviet Union was not defeated by the United States in the Cold War, but that it collapsed itself, and the military conflicts of the Cold War were unnecessary. There is the conservative view that the United States won the Cold War in spite of a fundamental flaw in the American character -- an unwillingness to bear the burden of war -- and that this flaw ultimately will prove disastrous for the United States. Finally, there is the non-ideological, non-political view that the United States won the Cold War in spite of defeats and stalemates because these wars were never as important as either the liberals or conservatives made them out to be, however necessary they might have been seen to be at the time.

Ah, the old dichotomy with those that are non-ideological as a backstop! Such lovely support of dichotomous politics and pragmatism, that one can't help but wonder how so many point to it and yet so few actually understand it. Lets dispose of these three bits.

Liberal views that thought that the USSR would collapse upon itself economically. This is the Hamiltonian view with a bit of Jeffersonian added in to leaven the anti-democratic paradigm a bit. It is also wrong. Without showing any ability to defend Friends and Allies anywhere, the US would not have demonstrated that such people as that ARE our Friends and Allies are worth supporting. As the key area of Communist failure was in the Eastern European Nations that specifically looked to the US as the great bulwark against Communism, what would have been the message being sent if we did not: Fight to save North Korea, Fight to keep South Vietnam whole, go after Cuba repeatedly and require the removal of nuclear tipped short range ballistic missiles from it, and done nothing against Iran. Ok, scratch the last as we haven't done much of anything against Iran beyond some low cost economic embargoes. Would Solidarity in Poland have even FORMED if there was no feeling that the US would offer hope and liberty if the Poles *did something*? As they were critical to undermine the USSR and all of European Communism, the willpower shown by the US was a fundamental underpinning to establishing that the Friends and Allies of liberty and freedom were worth fighting for, even if we are a flawed people in that doing. As a devoutly religious people, the Poles understand human flaws and yet still see the outlook and the will to help and that was enough. Let Friends and Allies fall because they 'are not worth the trouble' and you soon have NO Friends or Allies.

The conservative view of being unwilling to fight the hard fights has a large element of truth in it. It is a view of Nationalism, that is supporting the order of Nation States of which the United States is one and has its own outlook and goals. The criticality in standard conservatism is in NOT stating what is necessary to win. Social conservatives may do so, but tend to make it religiously oriented while the Nation must reason on non-religious concepts for survival especially with regards to religion. Having been founded so as to remove the concept of Holy War from the possibility of the Republic, the Republic cannot use that as a basis for fighting. But the larger criticism of Americans being unwilling to burden warfare and its costs is true, and the majority of the Nation's time has only had a Volunteer military. The cost and burden in lives are taken up by those willing to protect the rest of the People, while the financial portion is shared amongst everyone who is protected. That only works if the rest of the population holds to the commonality of the compact of the Constitution and supports its own survival.

Then the non-ideological view is the one of things just not being as important as they are said to be! Isn't that wonderful? You can get away with apathy any time with this view as *nothing* is ever important to anyone unless they hold it dear. Unfortunately, in this Republic, we DO hold our responsibilities in common and have said so via the Constitution. By abdicating the importance of the Nation and adhering to no support of it in the actions it takes, those that espouse this non-ideological view are basically saying: 'I gots mine, don't bother me anything else because everything will work out ok'. Yes the call to apathy and sitting on the barcalounger with a beer and peanuts at hand. The Nation isn't important, always been there and always will... and what, exactly, was it before 1775?

Thus the outcomes, as Mr. Friedman sees it, are these three areas come out as:

The first says that the Iraq war is unnecessary and even harmful in the context of the U.S.-jihadist confrontation -- and that, regardless of outcome, it should not be fought. The second says that the war is essential -- and that, while defeat or stalemate in this conflict perhaps would not be catastrophic to the United States, there is a possibility that it would be catastrophic. And at any rate, this argument continues, the United States' ongoing inability to impose its will in conflicts of this class ultimately will destroy it. Finally, there is the view that Iraq is simply a small piece of a bigger war and that the outcome of this particular conflict will not be decisive, although the war might be necessary. The heated rhetoric surrounding the Iraq conflict stems from the traditional American inability to hold things in perspective.

But then he goes on to one of the most dangerous paragraphs I have ever seen for a strategic analyst:

There is a reasonable case to be made for any of these three views. Any Stratfor reader knows that our sympathies gravitate toward the third view. However, that view makes no sense unless it is expanded. It must also take into consideration the view that the Soviet Union's fall was hardwired into history regardless of U.S. politico-military action, along with the notion that a consistent willingness to accept stalemate and defeat represents a significant threat to the United States in the long term.

Why yes, indeed, if we would have just let the USSR merrily expand and export Communist revolution across the globe and not countered it anywhere and made no stand anywhere for any Friends and Allies, well gosh and golly-gee it would have just plumb tuckered out and imploded anyways! Or impoverished more people, put them out into other Nations with weapons and guidance and brought further calamity on a global scale as democracy would then be seen as a *losing* proposition as it would not stand up *for* anything. It is no *wonder* that the Elites have a problem: they are still stuck with predestinationism for world affairs even AFTER the US Revolution puts man forward as his own actor to set his own goals. And for that matter, the goals of Nations.

I am going to give a hard glossing over to the next section on resource commitments and implications. I have covered those and why they arose, although I will point out that the argument that the 'Realists' were the ones instrumental in changing the Foreign Policy outlook from one that supported protection of National Interests, to one of trying to estimate the cost-value of protecting them and coming to the conclusion that nothing is much worth defending. This is the cost of presenting a 'guns or butter' dichotomy: the US was able to grow at a fast clip even with 8% or so of its GDP devoted to military expenditures throughout the Cold War. The USSR was spending 15% but for many, many long years had no return on investment in the way of new allies or resources added in to help bolster things. Having to equip four entire North Vietnamese armies completely was an exhausting experience for the USSR as was the loss of manufacturing needed to support China during the Korean war, and then further problems in expansionism in Afghanistan which continually ate up resources. At that level of expenditure, very few Nations can continue on at that clip for decades, and if they had not needed to put out as much in military hardware and gathered easy victories in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere, the entire concept of what is worth fighting for or against changes. The US was, indeed, not serious about fighting, but *was* serious about expanding economic potential which has had the great boon of increasing military lethality and effectiveness. Playing the blocking game of containment against the USSR was a winning proposition as the cost would fall disproportionately on the USSR as its economy was, basically, a third world economy with nuclear weapons and vast size. The US leveraged productivity and economic expansion to increase the cost of going to war more for the USSR than for the US, but that can only take place in an atmosphere where that strategy is actually enforced and maintained.

From here we go to the 'spoiling attack' conception that Mr. Friedman is putting forth. He explains it thusly:

The concept of a spoiling attack is intimately bound up with the principle of economy of force. Military power, like all power, is finite. It must be husbanded. Even in a war in which no resources are spared, some operations do not justify a significant expenditure. Some attacks are always designed to succeed by failing. More precisely, the resources devoted to those operations are sufficient to disrupt enemy plans, to delay an enemy offensive, or to create an opportunity for political disruption of the enemy, rather than to defeat the enemy. For those tasked with carrying out the spoiling attack, it appears that they are being wasted in a hopeless effort. For those with a broader strategic or geopolitical perspective, it appears to be the proper application of the "economy of force" principle.

Now I don't particularly agree with that definition as it is a bit on the over-broad side and is reading much more into the attack type than is warranted. Coming from the Defense Technical Information Center is this dictionary which has this for a spoiling attack:

spoiling attack

(DOD) A tactical maneuver employed to seriously impair a hostile attack while the enemy is in the process of forming or assembling for an attack. Usually employed by armored units in defense by an attack on enemy assembly positions in front of a main line of resistance or battle position.

And from the FAS site in US Army DoD 101- An Introduction to the Military, FM 101-5-1 Operational Terms and Graphics, Chapter 1 we get this for economy of force:

economy of force - The allocation of minimum-essential combat capability or strength to secondary efforts so that forces may be concentrated in the area where a decision is sought. Economy of force is a principle of war and a condition of tactical operations. It is not used to describe a mission.

One must love the military: "It is not used to describe a mission." That is what I like, discrimination of terminology so as to properly apply the correct term to the objective. But we really haven't found what Mr. Friedman is getting at, have we? So now it is military terminology time! Let us try a few others from the FM-101-5:

delaying operation (JP 1-02, NATO) - An operation in which a force under pressure trades space for time by slowing down the enemy's momentum and inflicting maximum damage on the enemy without, in principle, becoming decisively engaged. (Army) - Usually conducted when the commander needs time to concentrate, preserve, or withdraw forces; to establish defenses in greater depth; to economize in an area; to cover a defending or withdrawing unit; to protect a friendly unit's flank; or to complete offensive actions elsewhere. In the delay, the destruction of the enemy force is secondary to slowing his advance to gain time.

disrupt - A tactical task or obstacle effect that integrates fire planning and obstacle effort to break apart an enemy's formation and tempo, interrupt the enemy's timetable, or cause premature commitment of enemy forces, or the piecemealing of his attack

diversion (JP 1-02) - 1. The act of drawing the attention and forces of an enemy from the point of the principal operation; an attack, alarm, or feint that diverts attention. 2. A change made in a prescribed route for operational or tactical reasons. A diversion order will not constitute a change of destination. 3. A rerouting of cargo or passengers to a new transshipment point or destination or on a different mode of transportation prior to arrival at ultimate destination.

harassing fire (JP 1-02, NATO) - Fire designed to disturb the rest of the enemy troops, to curtail movement, and, by threat of losses, to lower morale.

interdiction (JP 1-02) - An action to divert, disrupt, delay, or destroy enemy's surface military potential before it can be used effectively against friendly forces.

reconnaissance in force (JP 1-02, NATO) - An offensive operation designed to discover and/or test the enemy's strength or to obtain other information. (Army) - A form of reconnaissance operation designed to discover or test the enemy's strength or to obtain other information.

Then just a few more from the FM 100-20 glossary at Globalsecurity which deals with Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflicts :

indirect action: Military action in support of political, economic, and informational initiatives which are so dominant that they shape the form of the military action; military action through support of another party, such as security assistance to friendly foreign armed forces.

intimidation: The attempt to prevent an unwanted action by individuals, groups, or governments by the use of threats or by other means.

low intensity conflict: Political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain certain regional and global security implications. Also called LIC. (JCS Pub 1-02)

political actions: Diplomacy; communication with a foreign government or group to persuade or compel it to support one's own policies, by means of argument, promises, and threats.

remote area operations: Government operations undertaken in contested areas to establish host nation strongholds. These areas may be populated by ethnic, religious, or other isolated minority groups; however, remote area operations may be conducted in areas devoid of civilian population and in which insurgent forces have established training areas, rest areas, logistical facilities, or command posts. The remote area tactical force should be composed mainly of personnel indigenous to the operational area.

unconventional warfare: A broad spectrum of military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held, enemy-controlled or politically sensitive territory. Unconventional warfare includes, but is not limited to, the interrelated fields of guerrilla warfare, evasion and escape, subversion, sabotage, and other operations of a low visibility, covert, or clandestine nature. These interrelated aspects of unconventional warfare may be prosecuted singly or collectively by predominantly indigenous personnel, usually supported and directed in varying degrees by an external source or sources during all conditions of war or peace.

So what is Mr. Friedman actually trying to describe? In outlook economy of force is the disposition of the least number of troops to gain the greatest benefit. These are normally associated with a Low Intensity Conflict, in which forces are used to disrupt enemy activities, divert enemy concentration to deployed forces and away from critical areas, interdiction of areas either by air or with ground forces to deny enemy mobility, supply and ease of passage, all in coordination with indirect action, particularly political action. This can often move into very low personnel Unconventional Warfare in which harassing the enemy is paramount to slow their operations and further one's own.

Do notice that I have shorn Mr. Friedman's language of its emotional overtones of 'hopeless effort' and such, as I find that sort of attitude a bit on the negative side. Those inside the Armed Forces recognize the utility of maintaining obscure objectives for the larger operation, although it does suck to be the one having to do so. But that is what Volunteering is all about! And more to the point, the Armed Forces prefer to keep that to a minimum, although in high volume conflicts, like a World War using Total War doctrine, there is a large number of such operations just due to the scales of forces involved. For a Volunteer military the amount of investment into each soldier is very high, so the value placed upon them is greater than in a Conscript or Draft based force. So, am I getting into being one of those with the 'broader strategic or geopolitical perspective' concept?

Tactically doing these things is necessary for larger operations. Moving into the realm of strategic force disposition, one does not like to reinforce a place, region or Nation that has no value to you on the military or political side. Often placement of lesser forces may indicate political support, with the now marginal 16,000 or so US forces in South Korea being indicative of that, but doing that on a larger scale with hundreds of thousands of troops is not only unwise but a way to quickly run down such forces if they are not kept properly supplied. This happened with two US Army Divisions in 1999 that had been so extended and overused in 'peace keeping' operations, that they fell to the lowest readiness seen in the US Armed Forces since Vietnam. There are, indeed, consequences to using large scale forces in such scenarios. Following from this, then, Mr. Friedman does try to implicate that the effects of the Korean War, Vietnam War, and Cuban problems as these 'economy of force spoiling attacks', and Iran as a sideshow once it did not align to the USSR.

The following paragraph sums up his argument:

However, there is a deep structure in U.S. foreign policy that becomes visible. The incongruities of stalemate and defeat on the one side and growing U.S. power on the other must be reconciled. The liberal and conservative arguments explain things only partially. But the idea that the United States rarely fights to win can be explained. It is not because of a lack of moral fiber, as conservatives would argue; nor a random and needless belligerence, as liberals would argue. Rather, it is the application of the principle of spoiling operations -- using limited resources not in order to defeat the enemy but to disrupt and confuse enemy operations.

Thus you can lose and still win!!

Except that one thing has changed in this era: the enemy is no Nation State and is not amenable to the standard forms of warfare used in the late 20th century. If they were we would not have them as enemies now, would we?

The adherence of the multiple Elite groups to desperately cling to the late 20th century in search of any salvation in the 21st is jarring. Apparently the will to actually have a Nation is taken for granted even though it is that will that is the direct target of terrorism and transnational progressivism. By deriding the Nation State and attempting to remove the legitimacy of warfare from the inside and the outside, the toxic memes that are generated are not attacking 'moral fiber' but are attacking the will to continue on with a Nation that supports Friends and Allies, come what may. Particularly disturbing in Mr. Friedman's analysis is the non-recognition of the significance of that and what it says about a Nation that cannot stick by its Friends and Allies in times of war when your own Nation is not threatened with immediate or even near term destruction. Actually finding the capability to be aggressive against an enemy and fight them so that they will lose heart and stop fighting appears to be out of the question in this current conflict for Mr. Friedman. What he is not offering with his analysis, even if correct, is the TARGET of this 'spoiling attack'. There is no Soviet Union nor Sino-Soviet diplomacy involved. There is no nearby neighbor looking to have Soviet weapons of mass destruction placed on their soil to target us. Who is the target in this case? He will not name them because to name them points to the fallacy of the argument itself.

Transnational Terrorism. Cross supporting organizations willing to use any host Nation that can support them as a means to further increasing the lethality of all terrorist organizations. The Islamofascistic sorts are but one type that we see the most of in Iraq, but on a global scale the number of groups that have performed things that would give legitimate casus belli against them if they were Nations is numerous. That is their way of declaring war on Nations: attacking them with the weapons and means of warfare but not adhering to any of the National standards of warfare. And even if Iraq and Iran turned into peaceful and thriving democracies *tomorrow* the threat would not be ended as the US is unwilling to actually assert her National Sovereignty to protect the Nation at large.

It is time to let go of the late 20th century concepts of warfare. They are getting us killed and defeated as a People by removing our ability to have a Nation in common amongst us. That is not 'moral fiber'. That is lack of backbone to stand up and defend the idea that a Nation is worth having and protecting, and that her enemies are worth addressing and defeating.

Because the spoiling attacks are taking place against us.

And they are succeeding.

Sphere: Related Content

The three sided game has one winner only

Much thanks to Michael Totten and his recent article on the Kurdish region around Erbil in Iraq.

This has been something that I have been pointing out for some time now: an Iraqi Civil War does *not* end up with either Arab faction 'winning'. Again, in a three way struggle in which only TWO sides show up to fight, side THREE wins. I said as much looking at the Iranian influence on the terrorism in Iraq and the prospects for Civil War there and came up to this, on a short list of conclusions:

3) It seems that even those fomenting the problems have forgotten one little fact: there are THREE factions in Iraq. If a civil war breaks out, the Army will look to guidance from that faction and help *it* to restore order. And they can add their own regional military in to lend a hand. The price the Arab Sunni and Shi'ite factions would pay is that of the Kurds. If they were not amenable to a peaceful solution, my guess is the Kurds and the Army would offer safety to any province *not* willing to take part in the civil war. When offered a choice of peace and protection versus an idiotic blood feud fueled by outsiders, my guess is some of the neighboring provinces would quickly join up with the Kurds.

And what is it that the Kurds see, as reported by Michael Totten? Well something like this:

The Kurds of Iraq may not need to bother with a declaration of independence. It may fall from the sky, my source said, if the Sunni and Shia Arabs break Iraq in the course of their civil war. "What would we do, decide if we want to remain with the Sunni Arabs or the Shia?" he said. "We don’t want to remain with either of them."

No, they wouldn't, and because of the extent of Kurds throughout Northern Iraq and into Syria, Turkey and Iran ALL of those Nations would have a fit. Now think on why that is with *this* following quote:

Kurdistan is safe even without its anti-terrorist trench, and that’s not because it is protected by American soldiers. Only 50 or so troops remain in this part of Iraq. There is no anti-American insurgency (because there is virtually no anti-Americanism) and there is no terrorism. If the Arab Iraqis were as peaceable as the Kurds, the American military could have folded its tents a long time ago.

Iraqi Kurdistan is technically occupied by a foreign power, but this occupation surely ranks among one of the most absurd in human history. Dr. Ali Sindi, advisor to Prime Minister Nechervan Barzani, told me that South Korea is the official occupier of “Northern Iraq.” Korean soldiers are stationed just outside Erbil in a base near the airport. He laughed when he told me the Kurdish military, the Peshmerga (“those who face death”), surround the South Koreans to make sure they’re safe.

The Kurds are the People who gave the world Saladin, of whom Richard the Lionhearted thought much of. He was a reflection of the martial ability of his People and that culture which remains to this day in Iraq. An independent Kurdistan is landlocked as was pointed out by Mr. Totten, and that has always been its problem.

But an independent Kurdistan would gain adherents across borders, with Turkey being the only Nation with any spare capability to do anything. With that said a bit of 'gerrymandering' might be in order as seen in my article Syria must go:

All of that said, to change Iraq the Demographics themselves must be changed. And so there you have all these wonderful Kurds sitting in Syria. And the fact that very few Nations there actually 'liked' the post-WWI treaties, and Syria is destabilizing the region, it might finally be time to say: You know, those old Empire Carvers that Created This Mess could have done a Better Job of It. Thus, any Nation that attempts to destabilize its Neighbor in the Middle East can look to something that happens in the US every 10 years: Re-Apportionment.

A bit of Gerrymandering.

Lets give the Kurds a Just Reward for waiting Patiently for the West to uphold Its word since the 1920's. Syria really doesn't need a seaport, given as how it no longer respects International Civilian Shipping, and the Kurds would LOVE TO HAVE ONE and thus break out of their major problem of being land-locked. Throw in a few Sunni border tribes and mixed ethnic towns and provinces and leave the Alawites in a small, land-locked Nation that will need to 'play nice' with Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and the new powerhouse of the Middle East: Iraq.

That is something that, to the Leftists and 'Realists' is unthinkable: unification of the Kurds and getting them a path to the ocean. Lets just say that the fear which the Iraqi Arabs in the south view the Kurds, and the harsh view of the Turks towards the Kurds leads one to suspect that a non-land locked Kurdistan becomes a major THREAT to them. You could do this to stabilize Iraq, by giving it a better divide demographically between Kurds and Arab Shias. But if you *don't* take that into account and you *do* get a real Civil War in Iraq, then what you end up with, sooner or later, is an expanding Kurdistan moving to get a sea port, and then parts of Turkey and Iran facing internal secession with their Kurdish populations after that happens in Syria.

Iraq can be an economic powerhouse with the Kurds and enjoy prestige that it has not known for thousands of years.

With the Kurds.

But the idea of a Civil War is a non-starter for one reason above all else: Kurdistan.

Iran knows this.

Syria knows this.

Turkey knows this.

And the Arabs in the rest of Iraq damn well know it.

And ALL OF THEM fear it, just like Greece has feared an independent Macedonia and for the exact same reason: History.

The Greeks remember a time of Greek glory, under a Macedonian... a kid named Alexander the Great.

And Arabs and Turks and Persians remember a time of martial greatness, under a Kurd... who was Saladin.

Lighting that fuse they all know will blow them all up and leave the Kurds still standing. If you cannot factor history, ethnicity, religion and the modern agreements that were not adhered to into the problems of the Middle East, then you have forgotten that ethnicity, tribe, and history play a huge role in Iraq. I do not worry about an independent Kurdistan as the People there remember who their friends are.

And their enemies.

Sphere: Related Content

So why the light postings as of late?

After taking some stock in my personal mental capabilities, and having it pointed out to me that I have shown some capability to better formulate ideas in the past year or so, I have decided to try getting some reading in! I did try that earlier with the last of the Belisarius series by David Drake and Eric Flint, but my mind was not working well on the integration or tracking side of things. While the gist of it did get through, and some very moving passages did ring solidly, it was not as good for me to read as I mentally thought it was. Yes, there was a disconnect somewhere deep inside between that area of surface cognition and the non-conscious part, with that latter ingesting more and reacting more than the surface area.

The other book was an ongoing part of the 1632 series, now fleshed out by numerous authors, scholars, and just plain folks who love the idea of a West Virginia town transported to Thuringia in 1631. What started as a small and cooperative community to look at events, has now become a deeper community of thought and writing to address stories large and small of how Americans would react to such a thing and adapt to it... and how the Europe of that era would likewise react and adapt to this whole new way of looking at things. The 1634: The Galileo Affair was, perhaps, not extremely well written, but the pointed look at how the Roman Catholic Church of that era was torn between power in the Earthly realm and giving Guidance in the spiritual had to come to the forefront. Galileo's trial was put off because of events in 1631-2 as who knew what the will of God had wrought? Was this a harbinger of the End Times or a Messenger or a trick of Evil forces?

Well, yes! Probably all of that as the small contingent that came, led by the Catholic Priest of the town of Grantsville, also brought other ecclesiastical documents with him, along with a few centuries of rulings by Popes. Much of that got to the Pontiff ahead of time, but the actual measure of the religion by the men and women involved is what makes things interesting. That said, most of that was, like the Belisarius novel, absorbed below conscious level during my reading. Structures are created there and often my conscious mind has been able to get some idea of that and do the conscious integration work, but only via some difficulty.

So to start things off I went for 1634: The Ram Rebellion, which for me, at least, is much easier to absorb as the high number of writers and relative shortness of each piece is perfectly tailored to someone who lives in Short Attention Span Theater. These are thematic stories all moving around a dispersed and centralized series of events in Franconia. After the slow build up to the United States of Europe and having Franconia handed over by Gustavus Adolphus for the USE to 'administer' one begins to suspect that the good King... Captain-General... was getting rid of a massive headache and willing it upon the overstretched capabilities of Grantville and now surrounding towns and Cities, which are finally getting to some stabilized economy. To say that Franconia of 1634 is complex is the equivalent of saying that The Balkans have a few divisions within them. By parceling out stories into much smaller and concentrated chunks to see how adaptations are made by town and region, the overall ability of a reader, like myself, who has problems following everyone in a longer work is diminished: spread out a greater cast of characters and make only one or two pivotal and let the rest tell vignettes.

That was actually enjoyable to read! First time since late 2004 that I can say that.

Next up is Power, Faith and Fantasy by Michael Oren, to examine the history of Islam, the Middle East and the United States. This is a necessary book, by all accounts, to get a better and firmer grasp of the historical antecedents to the modern era. The actual historical knowledge of most Americans, especially those not willing to address the present, is highly worrying. By putting forward a strange, economics driven and oriented vision of world affairs, the entire landscape of politics has been warped out of shape and the ability to interpret history and make economics one factor amongst many, has become difficult. And the over simplification of politics and economics to suit sloganeering has put the entire concept of Liberty at great risk, by trying to push economics *first* and liberty *second* we are finding that the disconnect on building a society is huge.

Also worrying is the amount of extreme historical revisionism that both 'sides' of the political dichotomous spectrum, of which you get two as a very strange idea to describe the number of possibilities in a 'spectrum', makes it nearly impossible to have a discussion in which partisanship does not over-ride factual accounting of history and its implications. By ignoring facts and blatantly saying that they aren't so or, even worse, unimportant, the actual force of history being a cross-weave between all things under the sun gets lost. Even trying to find themes that re-appear find those who absolutely discount the directivity of those themes by trying to put a modern, victim oriented light on them when, the people at the time, had entirely different views of what was going on.

That, of course, is part of the Transnational agenda, and the weakening of the education system to support a robust understanding of Nation States, the Nation State system, accountability of Nations to each other via diplomacy and the leeway within Nations to have separate identities, all leads to horrific end of ignorance, apathy, and the loss of the rights of the Individual.

And the astute reader will realize that the two topics of the 1632 series and the modern review of the US and the Middle East are *linked*.

With the end of the 30 Years War came the Peace of Westphalia which established the Nation State as Sovereign for itself and those within it. Outside religions could *not* dictate within Nations without the acquiescence of those Nations. That essential freedom from the dictatorial concept of religion by having Nation States able to have their own viewpoint *within* each Nation is a critical fulcrum in world affairs. It brought about the beginning of the end of religious wars in Europe, although there would still be religious strife and persecution for centuries to come. The winning idea of the Sovereign Nation State is the way to end domination of religion across Nations. Nations may adhere to any religion of their choosing, or, in fact, have no religion or give a nod to all religions, but that is entirely *within* the bounds of that Nation and cannot be dictated by outside forces.

When looking at parts of Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southern Asia all the way out to the Island Basin area, one sees a raft of religious strife, differing ways of looking at religion and much conflict as those various religious groups seek domination for their particular religious ideal *above* that of Nation. Any similarities to the period of the 30 Year War with multiple large organizations seeking to impose religion upon each other and fight for it continuously and in a deadly manner for decades is purely coincidental....

Remember, this is just my pleasure reading!

Sphere: Related Content

Dumb Looks Still Free: Not in your name?

We have all seen the people carrying around banners, buttons, bumper stickers and signs proudly proclaiming that something done by the Government is: "Not in my name!"

Yes, scads of these nameless people are having things done for them that they just don't like and so they take to wanting to leave the commonality of We the People. That is, of course, their right, but once you do that and you have declared yourself to *be* a separate entity *from* We the People, you no longer have a say in the Government *of* We the People. Why is that? Well let us take a look at this thing known as the Constitution of the United States of America.

I have, of course, done this before and pointed out a few things that actually escape from notice because everyone is so busy looking at the body of the Constitution that they forget its outlay and outlook portion. That Preamble tells you much about those folks called We the People and what their common agreement is amongst themselves. It lays out those things that these We the People are to do, on their own, within the compact that will be given between them known as the Constitution. This is a social contract between all parts of We the People:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is a description of the outlook of We the People as a whole, which *includes* everyone who considers themselves to fall under that heading and being part of the Nation of the United States of America. Do we see, anywhere, in that sentence where one gets to say that this is NOT in their name? Any hidden proviso, clause or other some such that actually allows someone to de-obligate themselves from the Nation? The rest of the Constitution goes on to lay out outlook of one Government, the Federal, but does not encompass all Governments and is to act only as a referee to ensure that the People are governed, not ruled over. For all parts of that to be held, this Preamble that describes who is considered to be part of the social contract must be true.

What one does, then, in stating that an action of the Federal Government is "Not in my name!" is to disavow the Preamble and to, in point of fact say: I have no commonality with We the People and no longer wish to be considered part of We the People as the decisions by them are so bad as to be of no good to me.

That is what they are saying! You cannot read that declaration of "Not in my name!" any other way, save to say that the individual involved is no longer a part of We the People. These individuals have decided to leave the commonality of the compact.

By stepping AWAY from that commonality and no longer being part of We the People, they no longer can consider themselves to BE under the compact and the resultant Constitutional order that follows. Decry yourself to be fully autonomous in all decisions so that no Government speaks for you, and you are no longer part of that heading that starts: We the People.

There are many things that one can do under the Constitution to decry and petition Government. One can hold speeches on policy and debate such. One can post their beliefs and publish them in various venues. One can attend social gatherings to talk with other people about these things. In that way one becomes a constructive force for change in society by engaging fellow Citizens and doing the hard work of that first sentence that starts: We the People.

The genius of that compact is that the Federal Government does, indeed, speak in the name of We the People and for them in those few things that have been outlined as the common Government of We the People. As individuals we come together to form We the People in our diverse voices and outlooks, and abide with the understanding that the Government can do foolish things and even wrong and injurious things in Our collective name. The agreement amongst us, as We the People, is to work via the fully legitimate channels to change the outlook of our fellow Citizens through discourse and colloquy in many and diverse venues and forums. To that end We work together in helping "to form a more perfect Union" and ensure that Our responsibilities that We have agreed upon in that Preamble are looked after.

"No man is an Island" as John Donne pointed out and in this case the humanity in question is that of the common good of being together as We the People. While the feelings of those who disagree with the common governance are understood and listened to, the hand is ever held *out* to remain with Us and keep this social dialog going so that We may all be better in that doing. The heaviness of heart is seen at those that have decided to disdain all society and, indeed, remove themselves from that which is common: the Constitution.

One need not use the negative of "Not in my name!", but that requires thought and introspection upon what it is that your name is part of. That requires an understanding that those things that We the People have handed over to common Government are, indeed, done in Our name for good or ill. For that negative attitude is saying that you, indeed, not only do not wish to heed that common government, that you think that your way is best, but that one is also saying that the rest of We the People can take a hike as you are leaving Us.

This is not the voice of the lone individual put upon by society. That voice was given clear and explicit meaning against the individual being buried under officious government and the loss of individuality to that overbearing commonality, and yet did not declaim islandhood for the individual involved. It is, indeed, an assertive voice for individuality to be heard and to be separate and yet to still acknowledge that commonality even if its form is abhorrent. That is the voice for the individual to be individual, and yet remain part of society and have freedom for oneself.

It is longer and a bit less pithy than the negative, but is full of meaning for having been formulated in the modern era:

“I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered!
My life is my own.”

--No.6; The Prisoner: Arrival

One can persist in this and, indeed, *must* persist in this all during one's life. That is part of Our agreement, and as individuals we can be as cantankerous as necessary, decry the ills of government, and be a general pain in the ass to good and all. That does not de-obligate us from acknowledging that not only does Government speak in Our name, but that We are wholly responsible for ALL of its decisions in Our name.

That is our agreement as a People.

When it is "Not in my name!" then those saying such are no longer part of We the People.

They are certainly no longer one of Us and may they fare well heading to some other People that they wish to be a part of, since they no longer consder this place to be Home.

Sphere: Related Content

The Riverine fighting force proposal

H/t to Greyhawk at Michelle Malkin's on this article on the US Navy going Riverine in Iraq.

Ok, I hope that is enough on the credits!

Now, seeing Navy on the River reminds me that there really are some old concepts at play here: doing patrols along rivers to cut enemy supply lines and such and giving the old 'show of force' bit, plus interdicting traffic and inspecting islands and shorelines and such things. At one point in the history of the US this was known as 'Gunboat Diplomacy' in areas where actual Diplomacy wasn't getting anywhere. Today it is counter-insurgency and interdiction, which are lovely names for ways to not point out that Syria is using the main river ways in Iraq to keep supplies going to terrorists there. But then, there are times when regular Diplomacy fails...

That being said, and having this warped and bent mind of mine, I realized that there was something missing from all of this: the Marines. Yes, they have Amphibious Assault vehicles which the next generation of them will have skimming on water and getting nice inland coverage...

Expedtionary Fighting Vehicle
...but that is more for 'Amphibious Assault' not for 'Patrol and Interdiction'. There are times when having a lovely, large armored vehicle is just the thing, and taking on a hostile waterfront with pillboxes and such is a prime thing to consider. But for rivers? Well, you *can* do it... but then you are tied to the transportation system and if your vehicle goes, well, you have a problem. Now you could transport a larger organizational unit with something a bit heftier...


Landing Craft Air Cushion
... while very futuristic, does have some problems on size...




... what with bridge clearance and all. Yes something that size is more likely to run over a small island rather than stop at it. But boats are so... limited and armored vehicles just a bit much in the way of overkill when what is really needed is speed and multi-terrain capability.

So if we can start taking the best of all worlds, we can start looking at a basis for a new light, agile and yet relatively well protected military concept. Thus we can start using something like this as its basis:


Neoteric Hovercraft

Pacific Hovercraft - Discovery, NZ
Yes, you read that right: Ground Effects Vehicles. Hovercraft.

The howls of outrage that these are toys and flimsy things that can be shot up in a heartbeat. That was true back in the 20th century, but the end of that century saw something interesting happen in the materials science areas. Ballistics resistant fibers that can be added *to* fiberglass and other composites. The entire realm of composite materials is now offering protective capabilities that can be mixed right in to the actual fiberglass itself so that anything formed of a plastic composite or other materials offers resistance to small arms and fragmentation explosions. Lets face it, your basic armored vehicle does the same and even faces the problem of having a large cross-section to be targeted, while a vehicle barely 4 feet high moving at 45 mph makes for a *very* difficult thing to hit, even on open water.

So one target company would be the folks who make Dragonskin: Pinnacle Armor. Their composites offer a wide range of protection capability with varying weight changes. In that mid-range of rifles and light automatic weapons fire is a pretty nice 'sweet spot' of protection and weight balance for something like this. Other makers would include such places as Armor Holdings and even DuPont with Kevlar and other such materials. When you start thinking like *that* then you start to get into this kind of mode:


Neoteric Hovercraft
Because you can give such a thing just about any paint scheme that you desire. Speed, agility on land and water, decent crew compartment for two. Now all you need is a weapons system. And after doing a bit of figuring your brand new CROWS system, now seen on Strykers, can have a match made in heaven here. And that would also allow the driver to do it solo in case things got hairy, too. Being able to run and gun is a *very* good thing. And as the CROWS allows everything from a .50 cal to a rocket launcher to grenade launcher being installed, you can outfit a few vehicles with a variety of weapons depending upon mission. Even if you were stuck with M-2's you could *still* mount one of those and about 500 rounds of ammo for it. Mind you this is *with* carrying your Assault Load, personally, and probably having some pounds to spare for reloads and other fun things.

Now one can spend scads of time looking at the ultralight community and their high power small engines, and at some of the old-line makers like Wankel and their new VIP-4200, which promises high power, low weight and a bit more quietness. Because once you start talking power to weight ratios and how best to use the lift capacity and what makes them effective, you are no longer thinking of this as a pie in the sky possibility. And, believe me, there are all sorts of hovercraft sizes, engines, and designs out there, from the dinky one-man to the full oil rig transport barge which, if memory serves, carries about 300 tons of equipment. And, of course, the LCAC, which would serve as a great mobile base with its own, indigenous, light Riverine Force.

The large benefit of modern hovercraft is that they meet all NTSB safety needs so that even at their overload weight they *still* float if the engine goes out. Getting shot out on land just grounds you, but on water you should still be able to float merrily along with your gear. Things couldn't get much better than that!

But they DO!

You see, heretofore the USMC has been having to depend on its aviation wing, or on other air assets from the other services to get the job done. In this modern era we can now have one vehicle that does water, ground AND air work. You have seen them as model toys, but there is a full-size available that lifts 1,000 lbs and will load 1,200 on regular GEV mode:

19XHR Hoverwing from Universal Hovercraft
That's right, more lift capacity and the ability to *fly* over obstacles, walls, trenches, other vehicles and then swoop around for a strafing run. Add in two or three of these to serve the air portion of things and what is fielded is no longer a minor Riverine force, but a full fledged Marine Ground Effects Vehicle Assault Team. And with that extra weight one could add in a third person or a second weapon or... well the list is endless now, isn't it? With just a bit of work on the right kind of equipment, this becomes a miniature assault force perfectly suited for counter-insurgency and is also not as threatening as huge armored behemoths which do a great job on show and intimidation, but not so much on the 'don't mind us we are here to do our job' scale.

A huge plus on this sort of equipment is that it is all 'known': the engines are diesel or gas powered, fiberglass is a known for repair, and simple slap-on patches for the skirt to repair the plenum chamber. All of that sort of repair tools and such is light-weight and easy to use. The worse part would be needing to service the engine and *that* should not be out of the skill set of nearly any US Marine on the planet. In point of fact your repair supplies for such things are so common as to be available at hardware stores at any town that has same. And duct tape is your friend for 'instant patching'.

The high tech composites are about the only major cost factor in these things and that might even begin to compete with the cost of the engine, which is the majority of cost on some of the larger vehicles. The major problem is getting one's mind around a force that can rapidly disperse and yet be self-supporting against all sorts of minor threats and then only need to call on major fire support as needed. Here the idea is mobility and speed, not firepower, because that is what interdiction, search and destroy and counter-insurgency is all about.

I hope you found this enjoyable!

As with all ideas this is offered free of charge, no strings attached, cite it if you try to make a proposal on it and that is fair and even.

I can't make it any better. If you can, then go for it with my blessing.

Sphere: Related Content

Where is the sacrifice, oh Congress?

We have heard time and again, for years about the 'lack of sacrifice by America' in the ongoing conflict to confront terrorism. Indeed, there has been much talk about this from Congress, and the hot air has been blowing from it with such notables as this:

Fox News, FNS with Chris Wallace, 26 NOV 2006.

Chris Wallace:Congressman, in fact, contrary to what you've been saying, isn't the volunteer army better educated and more well-to-do than the general population? [This in refernce to a Heritage Foundation study on the US Armed Forces]

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Of course not. I want to make it abundantly clear that I have been advocating a draft ever since the president has been talking about war, and none of this comes within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee.

But I want to make it abundantly clear, if there's anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment.

If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

So anyone who supports the war and is against everyone sharing in the sacrifice is being hypocritical about the whole thing. The record is clear, and once we are able to get hearings on this, everyone will see what they already know, and that is that those who have the least opportunities at this age find themselves in the military, as I did when I was 18 years old.

And when he was 18 the fight was in Korea against an expansionist Communist regime that was then pushed back by the Chinese. Yes, this modern conflict is so much like that, isn't it? A superpower proxy stand-off with hordes of soldiers itching to flood the Iraqi borders and the US having to send men into the meatgrinder of ground combat. But even worse is the abysmal ignorance of Mr. Rangel on the true state of the troops, recruitment and capability of those volunteering for military service. Indeed, the equipment and type of warfare have so changed that having a high-school degree and the bare skills to even get by in this world are no longer enough to get a place in uniform. Overall the Armed Forces are better educated, better informed, and have a higher skill base than the US population as a whole. Mr. Rangel wishes to continue the draft mantra of the 1960's in which the poor were picked up disproportionately to those with higher income due to draft deferments. But that military is gone from this planet and the one we have today does not represent those patrician ideals of 'shared sacrifice'.

Conscription and the draft have been the exception for the United States, not the rule, and the history of volunteer citizen soldiers goes all the way back to 1775. Apparently Mr. Rangle likes the idea of putting young people at work to the behest of Congress, and that is pointedly *not* how America does things.

Now this is not the first time that Mr. Rangel tried to get such legislation going and he has had other backers as seen in this post by The California Aggie on 2 JUN 2004:

Discussion arose last year when, in January 2003, Senator Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) introduced the Universal National Service Act to both the House and the Senate. The bill would reinstate the military draft requiring both men and women aged 18 to 26 to perform either military or civilian service.

And this from The Badger Herald (06 OCT 2004) on the outcome of Mr. Rangel's quixotic dream of draftiness:

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to defeat a bill calling for the restoration of the military draft Tuesday.

By a 402-2 vote, the House shot down HR 163, otherwise known as the Universal National Service Act of 2003. The bill, introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, in January 2003, would have required all U.S. citizens aged 18 to 25, including women, to serve two years of military or civilian service.

Yes, all of two, whole votes for the draft in the House of Representatives.

But this is not an old story, as Bruce Chapman at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer points out, 27 OCT 2004:

Military conscription was abolished more than 30 years ago by Richard Nixon (yes, that's right) after a six-year campaign by Republicans to replace draftees with volunteers attracted to service by decent pay and better living conditions. I know, because my book, "The Wrong Man in Uniform," in 1967, helped launch a movement for reform that borrowed heavily on the ideas of economist Milton Friedman and was led in Congress by a young Illinoisan named Donald Rumsfeld.

Fighting on the other side of the issue were Democrats led by none other than Ted Kennedy. President Johnson's administration had resisted draft reform and Kennedy and company wanted to retain conscription and make it more universal. Since only a small share of each age cohort of young men was needed to serve in the armed forces, Republicans sought to enlist that share with positive incentives while the Democrats proposed to draft everybody for "National Service," a new kind of conscription that could be fulfilled in the military, but also in various government-assigned jobs.

Here is the main worry about the Democratic view of 'sacrifice': they prefer to conscript people so as to use them as a Congressionally mandated workforce. That is plain: involuntary servitude under Congress. Apparently that is something that the Democrats forget to tell us about 'shared sacrifice': we do the sacrificing and they decide who gets the shares.

Mr. Chapman then goes on, looking at the politics of 2004:

President Bush, like his father, has supported voluntary service, too, even with government funds, but nothing like the scope and cost envisioned by such liberals as Kennedy, and now John Kerry. Candidate Kerry wants to enlist a half million people in his plan, many doing "service" for indirect pay, such as schooling grants, that taxpaying citizens perform now, or could perform if compensated.

But always lurking in the background for liberals has been the idea of getting "service" out of everybody and the full awareness that that will entail coercion in the form of conscription someday. Democrats are the main backers of comprehensive national service proposals in Congress and two Democrats, Charles Rangel and Jim McDermott, were the sponsors of the bills on the draft that the House voted down recently.

Such lovely folks, these Democrats on 'shared sacrifice' and 'National Service'. That worry about coercion by the Federal Government to force people into labor for it is not only anti-democratic (small "d" as in democracy) but counter to the ethos of America. Only under extreme National threat has conscription and the draft been used and then repealed as fast as possible as the liberty and freedom of the individual is put at extreme risk by a Government that has an unwilling workforce that can work for little or, as John Kerry wanted it, NO pay.

That is not 'shared sacrifice'. That is involuntary servitude and the threat of coercion makes it slavery. And then we have the true calamity as seen by Rep. John Murth (D-PA) in a 17 NOV 2005 press release:

"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden."

So, where the hell WAS Mr. Murtha on actually making sure these things are FUNDED? Here is the problem with the 'shared sacrifice' vision: the Democratic Party wants FREE service from the Citizens of the US to do as it likes and is unwilling to PAY for the things that actually protect the Nation and ensure that wounded soldiers have decent and proper medical care. Mr. Murtha says that he has been to Walter Reed "almost every week". So he has had PERSONAL and DIRECT experiences of the conditions there and has done ZERO about it. Remember, that is what Congress gets to do: set the budget and ensure that the National obligations are met.

Because it is Congress that must do the mobilizing of Industry. It is Congress that must ensure that stores and replacements are there for the Armed Forces. And, most pointedly, it is Congress that must ensure the funding of the VA hospitals so that good and decent treatment is available to those who have voluntarily sacrificed their lives and well-being for the Nation. Volunteers do that and Congress, from both Parties, is unwilling to back that to the hilt and ensure that the Armed Forces gets all that it needs when fighting a war authorized by Congress.

The question must come up, then, of the seriousness of Congress to actually do its job. Volunteers are there because they WANT to be there to defend the Nation. They are not coerced into it and, although the pay is quite minimal, it is present along with health care for the soldiers and their families. But the type and level of that service, the minuscule pay and the entire level of inattention paid to the Volunteers defending America points to their inability to even do their jobs for *that*. The entire rucus over Walter Reed came to light NOT from Rep. Murtha, but from a disreputable rag known as the Washington Post. The Army Times gives better and more in-depth coverage of the problems seen and why they are there, and the answers to that may start at the Administration but end at Congress.

Because, even though the House Republicans were in charge of things, we did have one Democrat on the scene that visited WRAMC almost weekly: Rep. John Murtha. Remember him? And with such an august member, as many House Democrats have said about him, being Johnny-on-the-spot at WRAMC which is ground-zero for the scandal, just where was HIS oversight of this? Congress does get the entire budgetary outlay, and saying that the Administration has 'mislaid priorities' when it is Congress that sets the funding for these things is totally out of line with the responsibilities set by the Constitution. The President executes the budget, but Congress puts the budget forward with all of ITS priorities funded how THEY want them to be funded and they have complete and final oversight of that funding. The disposition and spending of funds is wholly under Congressional authority and power and placing the blame on the Executive when you have an individual at the very site of the problem in question is not only disingenuous it is disgusting.

Now for some fun to see what *was* being funded by Congress. From the 2005 Congressional Pig Book on p. 34 (p.36 in the .pdf file):

$22,553,000 for projects in the state of Senate appropriator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the districts of House Interior Appropriations subcommittee members John Peterson (R-Pa.) and Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), and the districts of House appropriators John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), including: $11,059,000 for the Gettysburg National Military Park; $1,085,000 for the Kinzua Wolf Run Marina at Allegheny National Forest; $300,000 for Washington and Jefferson College historic buildings; $250,000 to increase tourism at Allegheny National Forest; $250,000 for Troy High School; $200,000 for the Harmony Engine Company Firehouse; $100,000 for the State Theatre; and $49,000 for the Johnstown Area Heritage Association.

I am sure that $22.5 million dollars could have gone a long way towards getting rid of mold in WRAMC and in cleaning the place up, in general. But that would have required deciding between pork in the Dept. of the Interior or funding VA hospitals to meet the needs of wounded soldiers and veterans. I know, a very tough decision, that. But, since this was in an area of Mr. Murtha's interest, he could have told these other Congresscritters that this pork should have gone towards funding WRAMC and cleaning it up. So sad that he didn't.

Not to stop there, however, we come to this on p. 34 (36 in .pdf) from the Interior budget:

$114,660,000 added in conference for 544 projects, or 17.7 percent of total Labor/HHS pork, in the state of Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the districts of House Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee members John Peterson (R-Pa.) and Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), and the districts of House appropriators John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), including: $27,551,000 for 89 hospitals and health centers; $17,513,000 for 75 college and university programs; $2,565,000 for 33 abstinence education programs; $950,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia to develop educational programs focusing on hands-on learning experiences (the museum has received $5,195,000 since fiscal 2001); $350,000 for the Inner Harmony Foundation and Wellness Center ($250,000 for the Wellness Center in Clarks Summit for a community health program, and $100,000 for the Foundation in Scranton for curriculum development. The Wellness Center offers classes such as acupuncture, meditation, and yoga, and “cultivates awareness and empowers individuals”); $100,000 for the Pennsylvania Hunting & Fishing Museum in Warren to develop curriculum for conservation education; and $50,000 for the Philadelphia Foundation for a Sports and Entertainment Career Expo to expose high school students to career opportunities in the sports industry.

Almost $115 million and not one penny of it for WRAMC, body armor, armored HUMVEES, replacements, stores, and equipment for the US Armed Forces. And while I don't deny that Pennsylvania may need its own hospitals and health centers better funded, perhaps they could look towards their own resources and not have to get it on the sly via pork? As in, bring up the subject locally and let folks know that during a war Federal money needs to be put forth to supply and equip the troops and it is best if the folks at home learned to look after themselves. You know? Sacrifice?

Let us not stop there, however, and see what the Transportation bill got added to it on p.49 (51):

$122,730,000 for projects in the state of Senate Transportation/Treasury Appropriations subcommittee member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and the districts of House appropriators John Peterson (R-Pa.), Don Sherwood (R-Pa.), John Murtha (D-Pa.), and Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), including: $10,000,000 for the Schuylkill Valley MetroRail in Philadelphia (which has received $45,500,000 since fiscal 1999); $6,000,000 for the Ardmore Transit Center; $4,000,000 for the 26th Street extension at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center; $3,000,000 for improvements to Route 412 in Bethlehem; $2,500,000 for the AltaVista Business Park entrance; $2,000,000 for the Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation Project; $1,000,000 for the American Parkway Project; $750,000 for a downtown signalization project in Mechanicsburg; $600,000 for the Hopwood Village Streetscape Project; and $350,000 for the Muhlenberg Township Route 222 Corridor Initiative. The initiative would revitalize downtown Muhlenberg by creating "a boulevard-style street design" and "streetscape amenities to promote walk ability."

Why there you have it! MetroRail, which should be a wholly local concern, places far higher than Walter Reed Army Medical Center, body armor, helmets, armored HUMVEES, new tanks, new aircraft, bullets, and such simple things as ensuring that there is some oversight into the whole thing to make sure it runs well. Yes, $123 million for mere transportation projects in PA that should be completely the concern of PA residents and *not* the concern of Congress. But that $45.5 million since 1999 could have done so much good in ensuring that VA hospitals had been kept up to standards, staffed properly, and have proper medical attention paid to wounded soldiers and caring for veterans. In total this Gang of 5 for PA has rounded up over $250 million in one year ALONE for purely pork projects that are of local concern only. In total PA, all on its lonesome got $359,872,931 as seen on p.67 (69) which only places it 34th on the list of most pork infested States in the Union.

Now for some real fun in the Veteran's Administration/Housing and Urban Development budget! Yes, let us take a look at the most dripping fat put into that bill pp. 54-66 (56-68):

$61,429,250 for projects in the state of Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and the district of House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), including: $4,296,600 for the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, Inc. (which happened to be created by Rep. Mollohan); $2,037,000 for Glenville State College for the construction of a new campus community center and the planning and design of a new science center; $1,250,000 for the McDowell County Commission for infrastructure and site development at Indian Ridge Industrial Park; $750,000 for Beckley for downtown revitalization; $657,000 for the Greenbrier Valley Economic Development Corporation in Lewisburg for facilities construction; $97,000 for the Strand Theatre Preservation Society in Moundsville for theatre renovations; $97,000 for the Tyler County Commission for facilities construction and renovations; and $72,750 for the Wetzel County 4-H Camp in Martinsville for facilities renovation and buildout.

Remember that the folks packing the pork into this bill are the ones RESPONSIBLE for the budgetary outlay for Walter Reed Army Medical Center. But I am sure that *any* foundation made by any member of Congress is well worth $4.3 million and that extra things like paying doctors and surgeons at WRAMC is far below that. During wartime.

$40,769,750 for projects in the state of Senate VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and the districts of House appropriators Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) and Robert Cramer (D-Ala.), including: $9,000,000 for the Marshall Space Flight Center; $3,500,000 for the Little River Canyon Field School; $500,000 for the state of Alabama for the Alabama Math, Science and Technology Initiative (NASA); $200,000 for construction of the Rainesville Agricenter; $200,000 for Mobile for renovations to the Saegner Theater; $150,000 for the Princess Theater for Performing Arts in Decatur for facilities renovations; $150,000 for Guntersville for the Old Rock School Whole Backstage Theater; and $97,000 for the 1856 Memphis and Charleston Railroad Freight Depot in Huntsville for repairs and renovations.

Yes you can get money to renovate an old freight depot, but not get money for Veteran's Hospitals, amazing, isn't it? Even theaters get preference, it appears. And if Marshall Space Flight Center needs some upgrading or bells and whistles, why that is always before fighting a mere war now, isn't it?

$40,665,000 for projects in the district of House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman James Walsh (R-N.Y.), including: $12,000,000 for continued clean water improvements to Onondaga Lake; $7,000,000 for the Environmental Systems Center of Excellence at Syracuse University; $4,000,000 for a new science center at St. Bonaventure University (Rep. Walsh’s alma mater, whose primary academic concentrations are education and theology); $1,500,000 for Onondaga County’s Metropolitan Water Board to determine the feasibility of bringing naturally chilled water from Lake Ontario to Lake Onondaga and Oswego County; $150,000 for Syracuse for building renovations and stabilization at the Mitzpah Tower facility (according to the Syracuse City Eagle, "The renovated structure would have 100 rooms, facilities for conferences and a business center. The existing symphony hall will be renovated into a ballroom for weddings, corporate functions or dinner theater and an on-premises gym would be contracted out to a known gym facility. A four-star restaurant with an upscale lounge and billiard room would also be built"); and $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame.

Do note, all of that is due to Rep. James Walsh. Nearly $41 million for his own pet projects, and rewarding schools and making sure that purely civilian and local structures for private use were renovated. And a four-star restaurant added in. My, oh my, what dining facilities could WRAMC have gotten with that!

$27,850,000 for projects in the state of Senate VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and the district of House appropriator Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), including: $3,000,000 for the Chesapeake Information Based Aeronautics Consortium; $1,750,000 for the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, for photonics research; $500,000 for St. Mary’s County for the acquisition and redevelopment of Lexington Manor; $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage; $72,750 for the Enterprise Foundation in Annapolis for a feasibility study; and $72,750 for the Cal Ripken, Sr. Foundation for construction of a stadium in Aberdeen. When the stadium is completed, it will be a replica of Camden Yards in Baltimore in order to give kids a feel for playing in the major leagues. The foundation boasts that for $60, each donor can have bricks engraved with their name placed in the stadium. Appropriate recognition of the largest contribution would be to have 1,212 bricks engraved with "A Gift from the American Taxpayer."

I want my bricks back as they need to be thrown through some windows. But what is money doing going to a "Information Based Aeronautics Consortium"? Are they going to lay out new aircraft for the DoD? Perhaps a next-generation A-10? Maybe a new transport helicopter? Look at JP Aerospace to get a new orbital communication system up for the USAF? Or just get nice little benefits from their patrons in Congress? Send those bricks back to Congress, air delivery for defenestration.

$27,112,000 added by the Senate for projects in the state of Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo.), including: $2,300,000 for the University of Missouri at Rolla for the Aerospace Propulsion Particulate Emissions Reduction Program; $1,000,000 for the Missouri Pork Producers Federation for developing technology and creation of an innoventor process to decrease the environmental impacts of animal waste by conversion into energy sources; $1,000,000 for the St. Louis Science Center Visitor Center; $1,000,000 for St. Joseph for construction associated with the St. Joseph Community Riverfront Redevelopment Project; $500,000 for the Ozarks Environmental and Water Resources Institute at Southwest Missouri State University; and $250,000 for Greene County for developing a natural history museum in Springfield.

Aerospace Propulsion Particulate Emissions Reduction Program? Jet exhaust reduction? Ok, for just 1% of that I will give you a hint: cleaner fuels and better filters. Too bad that Mr. Kit Bond decided to waste money on examining aircraft pollution when lead filled skies around helicopters and aircraft needs to be addressed. That can be a suddenly fatal case of lead poisoning in combat.

$20,440,000 for projects in the state of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), including: $3,000,000 for the University of Alaska for weather and ocean research; $1,300,000 for the Denali Commission for economic development in remote native and rural villages; $900,000 for Ketchikan for costs associated with the construction of the Tongass Coast Aquarium; $525,000 for the Bering Straits Native Corporation in Nome for the Cape Nome Quarry upgrade; $500,000 for the Kincaid Park Training Center in Anchorage for costs associated with construction; $375,000 for regional haze monitoring; $350,000 for the Community Association of Hyder for costs associated with the construction of a high speed water plant; $150,000 for the Alaska Botanical Garden in Anchorage for expansions and renovations; and $150,000 for Friends of Eagle River Nature Center, Inc. for costs associated with the construction of a community visitors center.

Its the 'Bridge to Nowhere Man'! All of those splendid projects that are pure and utterly local affairs not needing one red cent of Federal monies. I mean we have the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration to already DO this sort of thing for the big porker, and putting this in as a Congressionally Directed Action reduces the amount of manpower NOAA has left as it has to oversee and manage the contract that would go with this. Congress does not increase budgets to cover its pork, so vital missions get strained and often lack resources to cover the dripping bacon grease slid into Agencies. But that last is really beyond belief. No money, whatsoever, should be spent by the Federal Government for a Nature Center's visitor center. That is just absurd.

$18,440,000 added by the Senate for projects in the state of Senate appropriator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), including: $4,000,000 for the Stennis Space Center’s commercial technology program; $1,000,000 for the B.B. King Museum Foundation in Indianola; $1,000,000 for the National
Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi; $800,000 for Jackson for the remediation and renovation of the historic King Edward Hotel; $750,000 for Lafayette County for restoration of the Lafayette County Courthouse in Waynesboro; $300,000 for Holly Springs for the North Memphis Street Redevelopment Project; $250,000 for Jackson State University for the Lynch Street Development Corridor Redevelopment Project; $250,000 for Grenada for Taylor Hall renovation; and $250,000 for Pascagoula for public library repairs.

Why yes, Sen. Cochrane, I am sure that the B. B. King Museum is a wonder to behold. Perhaps they should rely on patrons to fund it? And I suppose that he needs tony hotel rooms for his lobbyists and patrons at the King Edward Hotel when they are in the area to visit... and public libraries *always* rate above Veteran's facilities, I would gather.

$12,546,250 for projects in the state of Senate VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and the district of House appropriator Tom Latham (R-Iowa), including: $1,000,000 for Iowa State University for the Center for Nondestructive Evaluation; $750,000 for the University of Northern Iowa for the GeoTREE project; $500,000 for Davenport for the Westside Diversion Tunnel; $300,000 for Council Bluffs for downtown revitalization; $250,000 for Waterloo for costs acquisition of the Cedar Valley TechWorks Facility; $250,000 for the Center for Environmental Citizenship at Luther College in Decorah; $250,000 for Bettendorf for the River's Edge Redevelopment Project; $200,000 for Fort Dodge for the Lincoln Neighborhood Initiative; and $150,000 for Storm Lake for construction of Storm Lake Destination Park.

Center for Nondestructive Evaluation? Look, sniff, smell and feel, I guess. No matter what you do, it is still pork. And that when a lot of soldiers are being put into a Destructive Evaluation environment. This next one has a priceless quote, and remember how Congresscritters are always talking about the ballooning defeceit:

$13,550,000 added by the Senate for projects in the state of Senate VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), including: $3,000,000 for the Inland Northwest Space Alliance for the FreeFlyer Program; $1,500,000 for Montana State University in Bozeman for the Center for Studying Life in Extreme Environments; $750,000 for the University of Montana in Missoula for the National Space Privatization Program; and $300,000 for the Story Mansion in Bozeman for historical renovations and improvements. According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, a task force appointed to evaluate the preservation of Story Mansion suggested that the best use of the land would be to sell it to a private developer. The newspaper reported, "What the task force recommended was putting the property out to bid to attracting buyers who will use the mansion as an inn. The task force also said that, if possible, the city should consider buyers who will use the land for a single-family home or sell it to Montana State University…. [T]he task force's first recommendation would be to sell the building to MSU. At the moment, the university lacks funds because of a tight budget."

MSU wants to get a Mansion and the Citizens of the United States get to pay for its renovation! Isn't that so sweet? Let us hope that MSU is not one of those Universities with spiraling out of control tuition costs, because one would begin to wonder just where that money is going. This list does go on...and on...

$9,525,000 for projects in the district of House VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Anne Northup (R-Ky.), including: $1,000,000 for the Olmstead Parks Conservancy in Louisville to correct riverbank erosion in Chickasaw Park; $675,000 for the YMCA of Greater Louisville for renovations to the Chestnut Street facility; $150,000 for the Trinity Family Life Center of Louisville for facilities construction of a multi purpose center; and $100,000 for the Dream Foundation, Inc. in Louisville for playground construction.

When people ask you why places like NOLA are so messed up, part of the answer lies in the pork funding for projects that have little to do with sound civil engineering and much to do with Congressional funds. Next up one of the Gang of 5 from PA makes another appearance to snag yet more money for PA:

$8,100,000 added by the Senate for projects in the state of Senate appropriator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), including: $1,500,000 for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program in Allegheny County; $300,000 for Bucknell University in Lewisburg for the Lewisburg Downtown Theater rehabilitation; $250,000 for Lancaster for the rehabilitation and renovation of the Lancaster Central Market; $250,000 for Erie for site preparation and redevelopment of the vacant and blighted Koehler Brewery Building; $250,000 for the Allegheny West Foundation for the Budd Plant Rehabilitation Project; $250,000 for the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Business and Industry for the acquisition and redevelopment of the historic Irem Temple (the project also received $250,000 last year. According to Sen. Specter’s November 17, 2003 press release, "The Susquehanna River Landing project is designed to refurbish the historic Irem Temple Mosque, turning it into an interactive cultural center while joining downtown Wilkes-Barre to the riverfront through the creation of a public area at the waterfront….This project seeks to invigorate the downtown Wilkes-Barre area, bringing in new jobs and enhancing the economic development efforts taking place to revitalize the downtown area. Senator Specter was instrumental in obtaining a $250,000 grant as startup money for the project for fiscal year 2004"); and $200,000 for the Borough of Lewiston for the rehabilitation and renovation of the Lewiston Municipal Building.

A Wet Weather Demonstration Program? Rainy days program? Ok, here is the deal: it rains in PA. Deal with it in PA. We have a National Weather Service to tell you when storms are coming. Now as to the Mosque, just what, pray tell, is an 'interactive cultural center' for a waterfront area doing in the VA/HUD budget? And why isn't that money going to something useful for the Federal Government?

$6,837,750 added by the House for projects in the district of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-Fla.), including: $850,000 for St. Petersburg for facilities renovation and expansion of the Florida Museum of Fine Arts; $850,000 for the Salvador Dali Museum in St. Petersburg; $850,000 for Dunedin for facilities construction and renovation of the city community center; $575,000 for St. Petersburg for the Tangerine Avenue Community Development Project; $547,750 for St. Petersburg for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Jordan School; $375,000 for Treasure Island for the community development project; $280,000 for St. Petersburg for facilities construction and renovation for the Mid-Pinellas Science Center; $280,000 for St. Petersburg for Dome Industrial Park facilities renovation and construction; $280,000 for St. Petersburg for facilities construction and improvement at Bartlett Park; and $200,000 for Largo for Central Park facilities improvement.

A Florida Museum of Fine Arts rates above WRAMC. Got that? And funding a Salvador Dali Museum is just surreal.

$6,417,000 added by the House for projects in the district of House VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), including: $1,700,000 for the University of Toledo Turbine Institute; $1,000,000 for Sandusky for wastewater infrastructure improvements; $1,000,000 for Ottawa County for water infrastructure improvements; $650,000 for the University of Toledo for the Lake Erie Center; $630,500 for Toledo for the Erie Street Market for facilities construction; $242,500 for Toledo for building construction and streetscape improvements along Detroit Avenue; and $97,000 for Toledo for economic development planning for the Reynolds Road Green Corridor Project.

Wastewater infrastructure? Sewage treatment plants and sewer lines, something I had always gathered was something done by State and Municiple governments.

$5,942,500 for projects in the district of House VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), including: $542,500 for Bartonville for storm water improvements in Broadmoor Heights; $275,000 for the Lakeview Regional Museum in Peoria for facilities construction and renovation of a new building; $275,000 for PeoriaNEXT for facilities construction and renovation of the Innovation Center business incubator; $275,000 for the Glen Oak Zoo in Peoria for facilities construction and renovation of a new Africa exhibit; $250,000 for Illinois College in Jacksonville for facilities construction and renovation of Whipple Hall; and $100,000 for Peoria for
the Southern Gateway Revitalization Project.

Yes, yet more local projects that the Federal government is picking up the tab on. So generous of Congress to do this during a conflict that they have signed off on.

$775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.). The hotel’s owners recently completed a $40 million, 10-year renovation and rooms are $350 per night. The Biltmore’s website boasts, "Coming Spring of 2005, The Biltmore will introduce a brand new, 12,000 sq. ft. destination Spa on the seventh floor of the hotel. Featuring spectacular views of surrounding Coral Gables, the Biltmore Spa will offer a luxurious and sophisticated setting for state-of-the-art treatments and services. Treatments will also be available in the hotel’s soon-to be refurbished, private poolside cabanas." This earmark was part of a program that was supposed to fund projects to provide economic opportunity in areas of the country with populations with low or moderate incomes. There is nothing low or moderate about Coral Gables’ per capita income of $46,000, which is 19.6 percent greater than the national average of $37,000.

You can't have your paying lobbyists and fundraisers stay in a shabby hotel now, can you? And I am sure that in comparison to the rest of the town, the owners of the Biltmore *are* poor.

$280,000 added by the House for the National Orange Show (NOS) in the district of House appropriator Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.). According to its website, "The NOS Events Center is the Inland Empire's premier source of end-to-end event solutions. Since 1911, the Events Center has provided a variety of innovative event solutions. Enabled by its renowned customer service coupled with the versatility of the facility, the Events Center has the capability of handling crowds in excess of 60,000 to create any event the customer has in mind. From concerts to car races and conventions to satellite wagering...from weddings to banquets and tradeshows to craft fairs...the National Orange Show Festival and the Pacific Rim International Wine Competition...if you've got the event, we've got the place." The website also boasts, "The NOS Events Center is the number one venue in the Inland Empire for public and private events. The Events Center has held such memorable and diverse events ranging from concerts including the Rolling Stones, No Doubt, Reba McIntyre, and the Temptations to Dub Car Shows, and private banquets." What about something "innovative" like charging more to your customers and less to taxpayers?

Sarcasm in the original! Tell you what, let them charge customers more and the Federal Government can get WRAMC up to snuff. No? Obviously not.

$250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs. Such programs include songwriting sessions where "songwriters perform in an intimate setting that encourages audience questions and interaction. Visitors can also learn about the instruments that make country music sound country. Musicians play their instruments, share information on the instrument's history and answer questions." Congress is fiddling around with our tax dollars while the country music industry itself is doing quite well. According to sales figures released on January 5, 2005, by Nielsen SoundScan (a service that monitors retail record purchases), there were nearly 78 million country albums sold in 2004, a jump of 13 percent over the 69 million sold in 2003.

Again pointed commentary in the original. Money given away for songs, literally. Now just some simple line items to cut down on verbiage:

$250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.).

$150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga. in the district of House VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee member Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.).

$100,000 added by the House at the request of House appropriator John Peterson (R-Pa.) for the Punxsutawney Weather Discovery Center Museum.

$100,000 added by the House for the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum in Hatteras, N.C. for facilities construction.

$70,000 added by the House for the Paper Industry Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wis. in the district of Rep. Mark Green (R-Wis.).

Yes, your money that should be going to help the VA is going to Coca-Cola, Paper Industry Hall of Fame, looking to create snow in New York ski resorts and greatly expand what was supposed to be a simple display of the remains of the Monitor into a full fledged museum. Why that is not being handed to the US Navy is beyond me, as they know how to do this sort of thing in a top-notch way.

I will make a deal with Congress: Eliminate all pork, fully fund the Armed Forces and new weapons programs, devote all the money normally going to pork to do so and spend not one penny on pork projects. How about a bit of demonstrating some 'sacrifice' where it counts?

In Congress they are willing to sacrifice the Armed Forces upon their table of
hypocrisy but not *money*.

And that tells me all I need to know about their priorities.

How about some "Leadership" from Congress and demonstrating that "sharing the burden" means Congress FIRST?

Sphere: Related Content

Wondering about a wonder weapon

Where does the line of Science Fiction and Science cross? Very hard to tell these days with things that had seemed extraordinary back just 30 years ago are now common place. You are reading this due to those advances and the world that developed was quite different than what we have, but we are still working on it. Back in those days the Soviet Union was the eternal threat and postulated to always be so... until it evaporated. But the legacy lives on and now a bit from the past comes to the forefront. In this day and age of WMD nightmares, we hear from the far off reaches about a new wonder weapon developed to combat the USSR that might disarm/suppress/damper nuclear devices.

Here is the pertinent quote from Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror, by Thomas G. McInerney and Paul E. Vallely:

In Rowan Scarborough's book, Rumsfeld's War, it was revealed that the Israeli defense forces have eighty-two nuclear weapons as part of their nuclear deterrence force. In our research for this book, we discovered that a group of countries, led by Israel and the U.S., had been working since 1981 on a mega-secret project to develop and deploy a weapon system that can neutralize nuclear weapons. The highly advanced, space-deployable, BHB weapon system, code-named XXXBHB-BACAR-1318-I390MSCH, has extraordinary potential and is a key part of the West's deterrence strategy. For the past twenty-five years, the project and the scientists involved in it were kept in strict secrecy and their existence denied. The scientists rejected Nobel Physics prize and Nobel Peace prize nominations and have been repeatedly and deliberately the subject of intense military disinformation through the media in order to divert attention from their highly secretive work. In 1981, when CIA director William J. Casey signed onto the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) — a missile defense shield against incoming nuclear warheads — he gave the green light for the technology's development for deterrence purposes and peaceful use only. Although we have only limited information, it appears that Iran's rapidly developing nuclear capabilities could be neutralized and rendered obsolete, as could the capabilities of other rogue countries.

Yes, nuclear devices neutralized!

And what was the outlook in 1984? Well, this is from the National Technical Information Service that Congress had look into things, and the most likely candidate is Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). Thus this report was generated: Directed Energy Missile Defense in Space NTIS order #PB84-210111. And from Section 10: Principal Judgements and Observations we get this conclusion:

4. In all cases, directed-energy weapons and other devices with the specifications needed for boost-phase intercept of ICBMs have not yet been built in the laboratory, much less in a form suitable for incorporation in a complete defense system. These devices include chemical lasers, excimer and free electron lasers, x-ray lasers, particle beams, lightweight high-velocity kinetic energy weapons, and microwave generators, together with tracking, aiming, and pointing mechanisms, power sources, and other essential accompaniments.

It is unknown whether or when devices with the required specifications can be built,

Further on the USMC put out a paper on Air Defense Tactical High Energy Laser MNS 95116DA and they wanted something to replace the system they had and looked at THEL for various reasons:

(b) TBMD. IHAWK is the only MAGTF system with any demonstrated capability against TBM attack. The IHAWK (Phase III) system is capable against a limited portion of the TBM threat set, specifically the shorter range ballistic missiles. Stinger based systems, MANPADS and Avenger, have no TBMD capability, and only limited counter CM capability. Although the Marine Corps is actively pursuing an aggressive TBMD program, current interim and near term solutions to TBMD are deficient in their ability to engage multiple TBM attacks, particularly when those attacks are combined with ABT attacks. Thus, the deficiency centers on the proper mix of AAW weapons to counter the ABT, which will allow the IHAWK or its replacement to concentrate its fires against the TBM threat. This deficiency is addressed through the fielding of an air defense, THEL weapon which will be capable of rapidly and effectively engaging the short and medium range/altitude air breathing threat, while IHAWK or its replacement system, is freed to focus on the TBMD mission. Although the projected far term solution for USMC TBM potentially will address this shortfall to some extent, the MAGTF will not possess the numbers and mix of AAW weapons which will be capable of simultaneously providing air defense for two MEFs.

For those in the Science Fiction realm they then looked at alternatives to the THEL:

b. Nondevelopmental. Several technical solutions may meet this need. Each of the services is pursuing laser technologies for specific applications ranging from target designation to target destruction. The U.S. Army initiatives in HEL technology most closely reflect the Marine Corps mission need. Additionally, technologies obtained from other DEW such as Charged Particle Beams (CPB) and Neutral Particle Beams (NPB) may be beneficial. It is anticipated that future technologies must achieve downsizing to meet amphibious and strategic lift requirements. There is strong potential for interservice and allied cooperation in the development and fielding of any HEL system. Specific laser technologies development which might be investigated center around tunable solid state lasers, semiconductor laser diodes, dye lasers, and linear/nonlinear optics.

c. Research and Development. Although the U.S. Army has pursued tactical laser development in support of the infantry for a number of years, efforts specifically targeted to air defense applications are of relatively recent development. Research and Development specialists from the U.S. Army Space and Strategic Defense Command (SSDC) are pursuing top level concepts and technical evaluations for a number of theater high energy laser systems. These systems can either be mounted on the M1086 standard U.S. Army Vehicle, or a M993 MLRS chassis. Laser alternatives being evaluated by the Army consist of HF/DF Chemical, Solid State, Free Electron, CO2 and Chemical Oxygen Iodine variants. U.S. Army developmental efforts show great promise as they meet, and in some cases exceed aspects of IHAWK missile system capabilities, while greatly exceeding the engagement rates of either the IHAWK (Phase III) or Patriot PAC 2 systems. The U.S. Navy has been investigating the use of ship based high energy lasers for anti-ship missile defense. Lasers considered to be most promising in this mission are primarily based on CO2 laser applications. The U.S. Air Force has focused its effort on development of airborne lasers systems for helicopter and fixed wing aircraft (707/747 airframes). New research and development efforts exploiting emerging technologies such as adapted optics, atmospheric compensation techniques and compensated thermal blooming, may be required to meet Marine Corps required range, altitude, fire rate parameters. The acquisition of CORPS SAM or similar air defense systems along with a high energy laser weapon could satisfy the deficiencies stated above. As mentioned above the Army RRAD concept employing advanced radar, gun systems (76MM) and smart projectiles (hit to kill) could potentially satisfy portions of stated MAA 32 deficiencies.

So in MAY 2004 the GAO looked at the progress made towards the Airborne Laser System, and the large costs and complexities of it. These have proven to be a bit more than expected in 1996, but that is standard for fielding a brand-new, untried system that does things that were, indeed, Science Fiction in the 1980's. Do note that this does *not* fall under the SDI folks, but USAF, so this is not a project nor program one would define as clandestine or secret or any such. The National Missile Defense budget has been putting in about $1B per year to R&D, according to GAO in 2000, which gets divvied up amongst all R&D projects. Thus, with so much being spent on interceptor types and software and controls and such, only a portion of this budget would be amenable towards looking at some things above and beyond the interceptors and THEL.

All of that takes us back to the US National Labs under the Dept. of Energy which, in turn, leads us to the JASON group, which does the review of all the National Labs work for National Security. This link at FAS gives some idea of what they have been up to in recent years. Most of these topics, ranging from aging to quantum computing are well known and not what one would call secret. The problem with modern day technology is that it is outstripping the ability to properly analyze how and if it can be integrated in to the Nation's Armed Forces. Civilians do not have the same problem with sustained operations and such, so the overhead and necessary foresight to move something from mere civilian realms and into the military is daunting. And due to the turnover of personnel at JASON, over time, difficult to sustain an ongoing program. Thus we are back at the US National Labs as the only place with continuity of operations and security for such work to be done. From their core competencies only comes a couple of places where they would fit:

Advanced Energy Technologies and End-Use Applications.
Nuclear Science and Technology.
Integrated Defense Science and Technology Competencies.

And each of those is not what I would call revolutionary, but evolutionary in outlook.

So, where does that leave us with this wonder weapon?

On the technology side from the 1984 list:

1) Chemical lasers - This is covered by the USAF Airborne Laser System. Purely evolutionary in concept and more engineering than science.

2) Excimer lasers - Known technology, used in LASIK surgery. These tend to be short range and have low penetration capability, so not what one would really want for a magic anti-nuclear weapon device.

3) Free electron lasers - Lovely, solid state devices that eat up energy like nobody's business. Now the Navy is looking at these as the DDX program may just have enough energy on-board to use these if they scale up well. That said distance and having to fire from the ocean's surface may limit the ability of even the X-Ray laser version to perform in anything save a point defense or, paradoxically, ship to orbit anti-satellite weapon.

4) X-ray lasers - Currently being looked at by Lawrence Livermore National Labs amongst others. And recent advances point to a good 'tabletop' version that may be available for medical imaging, if the power source can be found for it.

5) Particle beams - This has long been sought as a means for armaments, as it uses sub-atomic particles (electrons or neutrons, typically) accelerated to near light speed and then sent on their merry way to cause havoc. The USAF has been looking at this since the early 1980's and would fit the bill for a 'magic nuclear bullet' on many levels. These, of course, eat up energy like nobody's business, too, but offer the ability to pre-saturate a nuclear warhead with neutrons and start off a miniature chain reaction at a distance. This would not necessarily cause detonation, but might cause heat and warping of the nuclear materials and bathe the entire triggering array of electronics in very hard radiation. Ensuring that the neutrons get through the exterior shell and casing of the weapon is another thing entirely, however.

6) Microwave generators - This is becoming a part of the Active Denial System. As the microwaves get absorbed by the very surface layer of skin to heat it, anyone subjected to it gets the feeling that a blast furnace has opened in front of them, but no cellular damage is caused. Microwaves have also shown capability at knocking out un-hardened electronics, so has some utility there, too.

7) Plasma energy weapons - Here again the National Labs play a role and have been looking into this since the mid-1990's. But no phased plasma rifles seem to have come of that yet, so the worries about Terminators can be put off for awhile yet.

Do note that all of these are Directed-energy weapons of one sort or another, and to deliver energy to a target they must have that energy to *start with*. This is a huge problem as having a spare nuclear reactor to power one's weapons is still science fiction, although Mr. Bussard's concept for fusion may change that in the moderate to near future, but his research has been above board for decades. Then the phased plasma rifle will become, I am sure, used by hunters everywhere.

8) Lightweight high-velocity kinetic energy weapons - These are *not* The Rods from God or, as Jerry Pournelle puts it, tungsten telephone poles as envisioned for Project THOR. From the description I am pretty sure that what we are talking about are small projectiles moved to a high speed, possibly via a rail gun. Until you get up to about half the speed of light, the old formula of Force = mass x acceleration still holds, and to get that force takes energy, which is in direct proportion to the size of the mass multiplied by its acceleration duration. In theory one should be able to get very small bits of magnetic substance moving at very high speeds, but getting from here to there on the technology has been a problem. Again the US Navy [ppt link] has been looking at this for large masses to replace cruise missiles and standard guns. Being able to get a large, GPS guided projectile 200 miles inland at Mach 5 would be a great boon to it. We are still a long way off to a reliable weapon, however.

That doesn't leave much beyond *other*, such as the Electroweak interaction. And since that linkage already gained a Nobel, there isn't much save trying to figure out the practical applications of it. That is still beyond high tech and still Science Fiction.

So, besides the science and technology end, what would the practical end of this entail?

First a program in the US Federal Government able to last 25 years as a Classified program. Now if it started in 1981 and was just stood up from scratch funds *then*, and was not planned for by the previous Administration, that leaves us with the complete change over of both the Legislative and Executive branches a couple of times. And with the high number of leaks and such going on, a program like this would surely have been stumbled upon by some blabbermouth, somewhere. Lets face it, when the National Labs have a problem of missing hard drives being left out in the open on copier machines, you have a problem. Perhaps one of the best programs for a short duration was the Stealth Fighter program, and even *that* had model kits coming out based on night-time observation of the craft itself some time before the aircraft was even acknowledged. Because it was kept totally to one design team, and segregated via budget, external controls and internal controls, it took a political slip of the tongue to bring it out into the open and then the actual need to lower pilot losses due to night crashes finally ended the secrecy. Similar happened to the SR-71. Mind you each of those had development to final product of less than a decade.

For this proposed weapon to be space based, it must reach down through the atmosphere, accurately target a nuclear device, disable it or otherwise render it less than functional. The choices are very, very limited on that. Lasers of all sorts have an attenuation problem with the inverse-square law of the beam spreading over a given distance. Particle beam weapons have that in spades as interaction with atoms along the way can disrupt the beam itself. Using X-ray lasers may help, but getting energy in to disrupt the on-board systems is problematical until tried and tested in real life. A MASER (microwave laser) might be more useful, in that regards. Still, no real work on Masers have been done as that technology got played out in the 1960's. Neutron based particle beam weapons would need a lot of energy to get any decent mass of neutrons up to the necessary speed so that when they got to the target they would still be effective once passing through the outer casings as those tend to slow neutrons due to atomic scale interactions. And anything that is in an underground or hardened facility will be immune to these things.

I have problems thinking of *any* branch of physics that has remained uninvestigated since 1981 openly, if it showed any promise whatsoever in these areas as there are useful civilian applications to all of them. And putting forth a branch of physics that was theoretical *then* would have put it through the mathematical wringer since then, if it is to be a substantiated part of the field. Peer review must go beyond JASON so that the entire physics community can rip into any new areas and ensure that they truly represent something, or if problems crop up that discredit the hypothesis being presented.

At this point it is up to the authors of such works to provide more than mere citation of attribution to non-technical individuals. What the technology *is* requires proof via demonstration to make it effective, unless it is so overwhelmingly simple that the mere simplicity of it keeps it from being recognized. And even then, it still needs to be shown so that it can be used as a diplomatic deterrent. And I fully doubt that this United States Government can keep *any* secret longer than a decade. Just look at all the loose-lip folks that have circulated through Congress and various Administrations over that period, and the confidence in any such claims drops very, very quickly. The burden of proof is in the demonstration, not the assertion, as you sooner or later are backed into a corner of 'put up, or shut up'.

And with nuclear devices, that could have a very high death toll attached to it.

Sphere: Related Content

Some reminiscing about Buffalo

The following are highly disjointed thoughts, and memories from growing up in Western NY. No real content is provided. Rambling and random thoughts to follow.

Buffalo, NY, land of snow storms, blizzards and two months of hot, humid summers. Somewhere in there you can wedge in a sort-of spring and definite fall, each about two and a half months long. From December to April, Winter is King.

Growing up in the outskirts of the City of Buffalo, in one of the better suburbs, but not far from much of anything, I grew up close to the dying heart of American Industry. I can remember when Bethlehem Steel and Worthington Compressor and other large industries polluted things and whenever I visited family in urban Buffalo, in its old 'suburbs' and ethnic neighborhoods, I fell prey to that. Fumes, particulates, noxious odors and all the rest that went with the thriving industry of that era which was felt far beyond the reach of the pollution as the City itself was still vibrant, even after Canada opened the Welland Canal and the old Black Rock Canal was put to shame. Just an hour and a half or so, by car, was another industrial city to the north, Hamilton, Ontario, which, for my money, rivaled anything Buffalo could put out for pollution. A bit closer to the east was Rochester, NY, home of Kodak and really not known for much else, but RIT and Bausch & Lomb and other organizations moved that City, too, from industrial to post-industrial. About two hours to the south was Erie, PA which was already hit by the de-industrialization of the US when I was growing up. Far to the south lay Rust Belt Central, Pittsburgh, PA. South and west was Cleveland, OH and directly west was Detroit, MI on the other side of the highly polluted Lake Erie.

When growing up I did notice the differences in races and ethnic cultures, being half-Polish and half-Swede one does tend to notice these things, but industrial Buffalo had something to grind those things down and smooth them out. No matter what your prejudice *was* everyone there faced the common enemy: King Winter. Winter is an even-handed foe to rich and poor alike, handing the snow and drifts and winds to any who need venture out, be they in beat-up 'winter car' or high class limo, everyone was dealt with evenly, equally, by Winter. There were, indeed, ethnic and racial tensions in Buffalo, do not get me wrong, but when things like riots happened in Miami or Los Angeles, those sitting at the bar and watching same would just shake their heads: 'What was it with those people?' And those doing the head-shaking and sharing of the bar were black and white, asian and african and european and from all points on Earth that had people willing to brave King Winter.

What can one say when the town that they lived near had, as its source of being, the building of the Erie Canal... and as part of the history you learned of the ethnic tensions back then. Bars and other establishments had quite pointed signs out, with one of the famous signs at a bar being: "No Dogs. No Irish." Each ethnic wave of immigrants went through that in Buffalo: Poles, Germans, Italians, Southern Blacks... And all were drawn to this City for one reason: good jobs. Hard jobs. Industrial jobs.

To those working in Bethlehem Steel's sprawling complex, the sure antidote for being half-frozen was a few seconds in front of the blast furnace. That industrial nature of the City meant something different as Buffalo was never a cosmopolitan city, like New York City or Boston. It was a City central to commerce first via the Erie Canal and then as a rail hub second only to Chicago. And those things drew people to work hard, nasty jobs in brutal conditions. One can only fester hatred on an ethnic basis if you can actually perceive the ethnicity of those involved. The blast furnace made *everyone* black. The winters made *everyone* a bundle of clothing that moved. And if your neighbor was in trouble in winter, you *helped*.

Founded by immigrants and established by them, Buffalo became the settling place for folks from Ireland and Poland and those two strongly Roman Catholic peoples brought their traditions with them that lasted, even as the region diversified. Friday fish fry was not just something that got served at home or via a few establishments. Nearly every restaurant, every bar, and many shops and markets all offered a fish fry. Even once the Pope declared it was ok to have meat on Friday, the fish fry continued as something that was now a tradition of Buffalo. It didn't matter what faith, religion, ethnicity, culture or race you were, a good fish fry served many and places competed to have one that stood out amongst others in their neighborhood.

In fact the neighborhood was still the basis of thinking in Buffalo right up to the Rust Belt era and having Polish relatives living in Kaisertown was a bit of a juxtaposition, to say the least. During the early 20th century, the idea of local shopkeepers and butchers and bakers predominated and in those old neighborhoods it was literally one of each per block or two. Once these neighborhoods were no longer the outskirts of the City and incorporated into the City, many of those went out of business, but walking through the neighborhoods one could still see the places of business now converted to homes.

And as one may guess the old ethnic neighborhoods slowly changed and morphed, but locales kept their names and the fish fry, extended outwards into the post-WWII neighborhoods that sprung up just outside the city limits. Also gone was the cobblestone streets that were laid by hand by immigrants, and more than some few on the Polish side of the family remember that and formed a family crest of trowel, cobble, boots and shovel. The City was built from the ground up by those people and when later paving was put down, it was put down over the cobblestones, so that when Winter tore the asphalt asunder, one could still see the cobblestone foundation of the city streets.

As I grew up the industry receded as competitors from Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and other places started to do the industrial work cheaper. Bethlehem shuttered its operations and for the first time ever, folks in the immediate neighborhood got to see white snow fall on their homes, instead of industrial gray snow that they were used to. Those neighborhoods in Lackawanna vacated and new immigrants from the world over came to do other jobs that were springing up and to just live damned cheaply. The last happening at the site was when Poland *bought* the entire steel works and dismantled it to ship it back to Poland as it was better than their 1920's era steel works that had been given to them by the USSR after it had been looted from Germany.

Poland.

In the 1970's my Uncle Edward went to visit family in Poland and came back to tell the stories of it, under Communism. Even *before* Solidarity, the Polish People knew Communism would not last... they had seen Empires come and go before and this Russian one had no staying power. Many a Nation had taken over Poland, and yet it always emerges from their carcass once the dreams of Glory have died. Under Communism I got to hear first-hand not only of the standard things that one learned about authoritarian regimes: repression, spies, secret police. But there was something even further that was shocking. The regime was petty.

When sending clothes and canned goods and such to Poland in care boxes, it was asked that we stitch up items inside cloth and the box entire if it could be managed. It was done so they could see what had been broken into and what had been pilfered... and the resultant rags were of use to them, too, and the cloth if it was long enough. We were enjoined to send them *any* cast off clothes or goods, as even those that could not be fit to extended family members could then be bartered with others in the community. Cold hard US currency was a godsend and a dollar went very, very far in that era, and so those were put into odd places in clothing, shoes, boxes where the family would know where to look, but an inspector intent on theft for him or herself would *not* look.

That was the face of Communism: not only vile and repressive, but petty and theiving.

Just as the Rust Belt hit the US contained two of the largest Polish cities on Earth: Buffalo and Chicago. Not Polish-American, but Polish entire. Of course the Polish language had morphed so what was spoken in America had all sorts of strange words that made no sense to those directly from Poland and took awhile to figure out, and my Uncle related his problems in his broken Polish in getting ideas across that had no words in the native tongue, but had been invented for local American use.

Western NY was devoutly religious, not only in Roman Catholics, but numerous Protestant, Methodist, Jewish, Orthodox Catholics... The Roman Catholic cathedral had come into some disrepair, but it was being renovated and could find support not only amongst its parishioners but amongst the neighbors who had enjoyed community events there, too. Bingo proliferated not only for the game but for the social interaction and all were welcome in any church running such. That was rarer out in the suburbs where I directly grew up, and the local churches were not cheek-by-jowl with neighbors as they were in urban Buffalo proper. It was not uncommon to walk by storefronts and see: deli, bakery, church, dime store. Not even an alleyway to separate them. Even being non-religious due to upbringing and personality, I grew to enjoy the rich fabric of life that the various religions imparted to the community and the life and outlook they sustained.

I can remember the talks by family members of why they were going to visit one church over another and how the pastor at one had an interesting topic while the other had grown a bit pedantic. That would not change even when pastors were no longer locals, but from overseas as very few Roman Catholic priests were to be found in the local environs. Along with Easter and Christmas mass were also events such as the Blessing of the Pets, which always brought a gaggle of people with their pets to receive the blessing. In the suburbs were the pancake breakfasts and such that had service after the meal, and no one looking askance if you did not attend it but were there for the community aspect of things. That hard effort to build community and sustain it paid off, over time as all of the religions learned they had to work together because they, too, were targets of King Winter. If a poor man dies outside the locked doors of your church during a snowstorm you were seen as not only failing your calling but failing the community and being a poor neighbor.

Living accommodations in Buffalo did vary highly by income, with old or even ancient homes from the late 19th century and early 20th the norm in urban Buffalo, and larger estates in set aside areas also from that era. Then the City expanded around all of that for a first ring of neighborhoods. Then a second. After WWII the rise of the automobile allowed the creation of true suburbs, not fully dependent upon the City itself. The Thruway around Buffalo helps to delineate that,with everything from the center to the Thruway the City and then the suburbs around it. Older neighborhoods outside the City and Thruway did exist, but it was a rough-and-ready rule for trying to find places. Those changed as things went on and the industries receded meant that old receiving areas, especially one in the Clinton-Bailey intersection would see things like farmer's markets show up to allow farm goods to come in via the cross-state Thruway right into urban Buffalo and also gather folks from the suburbs via the Thruway there to purchase farm fresh goods and produce.

During the 1960's the State University was a 'hotbed of radicalism', and by the time I got there in the 1980's it was a 'hotbed of apathy'. Yes, the old, trenchant, tenured radical profs were still there, but they were getting long in tooth, and no longer all that radical. And going to that University, one got to experience another sort of authoritarian regime that grew up to cause that happen. When the University expanded, it did not try to buy up housing areas adjacent to it nor even in the nearby suburbs, but, instead, bought cheap land about 10 miles away and started building a new, large campus. To get between the two, the University ran a shuttle bus. Also the University had not planned properly for expansion and had far too few parking lots for its majority commuter student population.

The anomalies of that was amazing, as students had to take buses nearly everywhere to get anywhere. That, of course, was the point and the University had grabbed the old Student Union which had been bequeathed, building and all, AS a Student Union. The students got the eponymous 'Student Activity Center' which was a bit hard to get to, not really connected to anything and sterile. The old, turn of the century, beautiful Student Union got turned into office space. As I was graduating the talk was that students would get charged for the convenience of the University having two campuses via a bus fee. Add that to the parking ticket squads and then removing about 20% of the parking spaces to be for instructors and professors while they made up less than 1% of those needing to commute and you get the idea of what things were like there.

And the sterility of the SAC was more than represented in the rest of the new buildings, which I had come to term 'Early American Prisonblock' unless it was 'Neo-Modern Reflective' or just 'Industrial Warehouse'. Walking between buildings was done via 'The Spine' which more or less connected everything but not as directly as one would ever like. then walking along it I started to realize that the heavy 'Fire Doors' were not placed optimally for fires... but were placed well in case of riots. And one of the student housing blocks was created in an Escheresque formation where no two adjacent floors were at the same level and sometimes you could walk around a building and descend one level while not changing floors. Not even spiral, because of the indirect paths one had to take.

It is quite an experience coming during the first few days and seeing all the bright engineering students, mostly from China, but also India and South Korea, so bright and even a few with briefcases... and then at the end of the semester the haggard looks, rumpled clothing, backpack slung over one shoulder, head down, hair askew, the very look of someone who has been ground down by the system. Yes the University had a 50% washout rate for engineers in the first two semesters, something it was very *proud of*. On the Computer Science side I got to experience my first class with over 700 people in it! You, too, could feel like a cookie coming out of the cookie cutter. Personal problems with my health and some needing to re-organize my life took a couple of semesters out for me, but I returned and scrapped my CS track and did the broad-based 'take any class that looked interesting that you could get into' sort of deal. Actually, that turned out to be a huge help, and got me out of the emotional rut I was in and put new and challenging topics like Film History in front of me, as well as sociology, geology and political science. After that I had semesters that featured more geology, a long time love from early on in childhood, and every course on war and warfare that I could find. Luckily, in a University that was once a 'hotbed of radicalism' those courses were sparsely populated and easy to get into!

From that I started to reinforce my knowledge of Earth history, astronomy, warfare as it has evolved over time, how the individual fits within society, and such things as the works of Chaucer in the original Middle English. Eclectic? Yes! Strongly so, as I also did my bits with economics and what little math I needed to get through to a Geology degree. That gave me broad exposure across the University population, and allowed me to interact with all sorts of great people from across the planet who somehow had their governments talk them into coming to the icebox of Buffalo. I learned about Korean history and how they view the other Nations and peoples around them, and their proud traditions that predate anything in China or Japan. Japanese students were generally aghast at how students actually *asked questions* of instructors and professors, but soon learned that this was how America retained its vibrancy: we never take anything for granted and require that every angle on everything be thought out.

More than a few students from India and I did feel sorry for those that were in graduate student positions helping out on classes taught by professors that had a less fluid teaching style. Very interesting to come in and have the grad student say: "I don't know why he gave you these problems!" Truthfully I had that across a number of classes and labs, where professors had not actually bothered to teach the material, indicate what was necessary, what was needed to be found and even where to find it.... in other words, you could try to teach the course yourself! Of course it would *also* be handy if the grad student had any idea of what was going on, too. I remember beating my brains out on one structural geology lab and unable to come to any conclusion on displacement analysis of structures. Gave up, got to the lab where others had gotten there hours earlier and they were at a loss. The graduate student came in and announced: "This lab is impossible to do, I'm sorry for all the wasted time everyone has put into it, but Professor _____ doesn't even know how to do it."

Lovely!

All of this leads to interesting times talking with folks after class, continued discussions at the more central cafeteria area or its more deli-style adjunct. One discussion, I think it was after a sociology class, went something like this with a student from S. Korea:

'Do you know that when I was coming to America and heard all the stories of racial tensions and riots that my family was worried about it?'

- I would imagine they were! What do you think of it now that you're here?

'I really don't know! I still see things like that on television here, but it isn't in Buffalo. Why is that?'

- Well, most of the Cities you see with riots have populations that have large minority populations that have had problems finding work and haven't been too encouraged to do so. When one comes to Buffalo it is for a *job*... for all the size of the City it is a very large Town in spirit.

'How do you mean that? It looks like a City.'

I would smile at that, for Buffalo does look like a City. But perhaps not a modern City, with so much early 20th century architecture and the influence of the industrial era at work.

- Buffalo started out as a working man's town. The Erie Canal and transport work, then early industry, then heavy industry and becoming a main off-loading point on this part of the Great Lakes. Then the major railroad yards helping to move things along. Curtiss-Wright had a factory here for aircraft development and production, as well as Bell Aerospace. Steel was the leader, of course, but industrial and blue collar jobs flocked to Buffalo for cheap energy, cheap fresh water, ready transport via rail and across the Great Lakes. One didn't move to Buffalo for museums, artwork, orchestras or culture in general. Buffalo isn't a cosmopolitan City. It is a working man's town built on the hard labor of those who lived here and families that came and placed the bricks on the cobblestone roads and laid the railroads and dug the canal out. Buffalo is not a City of enlightenment but a town to raise a family.

'But, why no riots here? You do have high unemployment and low wages, just like in LA and Miami. They have riots and you don't, here.'

- The promise of America isn't in high culture or large cities. It is in making yourself into someone that you can respect by your work. We do have racial tensions, but the common thread here is that this was a town to come to not to be a part of a ghetto community, but to take a job and work hard at it. Those in the large cities have forgotten that part of the promise: you work to be free.

As I would later state it the grand vision of America isn't in the skyscrapers but in the neighborhoods and families that build them. That promise of America is cashed in on in the blue collar towns and cities of the Nation, where it is not forgotten that one is not free to work, but one works to be free. That is forgotten by many who decry the Nation today, and yet put little actual effort into working on the problems. If you can't be bothered to think about the solution, then proudly declaiming the problem is of little help for the compact is to build *a more perfect Union* and NOT decry that it is not perfect.

But that is what you get for growing up in a town turned into a city. And everyone in Buffalo is equal... before King Winter.

It really doesn't matter how rich or how poor you are: being cooped up in your house for weeks on end because of bitter cold winds and driven snow takes a toll mentally. That is 'cabin fever' and by February it is palpable across the population. Even the 'snow birds' that jet to Florida for a few weeks are hit by it within a few days of returning: a slight chill on the home and white out the window, broken up by darkness of streets and cars and the few evergreen trees. Winter driving skills are a mandatory thing that gets re-learned every winter.

My sister joked: "People get stupid for two or three days at the start of winter, then they get smarter again."

Yea and verily! If you can avoid the first two days after the first blizzard and *not* drive you will cut your accident rate down. And practice your driving skills and be *cautious* but do not slow to a crawl unless you can't see more than 5' in front of you. The first days of a blizzard or just snowy days are ones that see cars parked in ditches, in the triangular medians heading to off ramps, and generally a 'do it yourself' atmosphere in parking lots:

'Hey, you can't give me a ticket! There are no signs and no lines to tell me where to park!'

You get the ticket, anyways.

Mind you with a convent in town and only a couple of 'designated drivers' at same I have been witness to a car full of Nuns blithely going through a red light in front of me at an intersection... yes, there but for the grace of god, go I. They were driving the 'good car' in winter...

Cars are another major thing in the WNY area and many folks have two cars for themselves: the good looking summer car and then the winter wreck. Because of the amount of salt on the roads, high humidity and all that goes with it, cars tend to rust out very, very quickly in Buffalo. So if you buy a *good car* and want to keep it that way, you then buy a wreck to drive in winter. These go by the general name of 'rust buckets' or 'winter cars'.

Rust buckets usually have features not seen in your standard vehicles. Plywood floors are often sported as the originals have rusted away. That said, if the floor rusts out in winter you then have the alternative strategy of the 'Fred Flintstone braking system', by putting your feet through the floor. Rust buckets often feature multi-color designs, due to the replacement of doors and car panels from wrecks. You really don't care what the color of your car *is* at it isn't for show, just to get you to and from work and doing the daily shopping and such. Rust buckets will often have the illegal studded tires, that NY State so handily outlawed and that folks keep on importing for their rust buckets. Many rust buckets feature a cooler in the back seat along with sleeping bag, pillow, blankets, flares, and a stale box of donuts. Inside the cooler is usually a six pack of beer and leftover pizza, plus any other provisions that get dropped in there and forgotten about, like orange juice not necessarily in its container any more. And above all rust buckets have dents, scratches, duct tape and all other sorts of unsightly blemishes, scars and half-hearted repair attempt marks all over them.

Whenever you need to buy a *new* car and some dealership is fool enough to offer a rebate on your present vehicle, sight unseen so long as it drives, then you trade in the rust bucket and turn your previous good car into the new 'winter car'. It will soon be a 'rust bucket'.

Of the great problems witnessed in Buffalo was that of the streets being pot-hole festooned during the year. This was due to ground upheaval by cold weather, poorly laid roadbeds and snow plows that would sheer off any bumps in the road. Soon you had cracks, then bumps then pot-holes. Any break in the weather might see road crews putting a 'cold patch' down in a pot-hole: a bunch of gravel and small rocks all but certain to be washed out by any melt water and ground out by any vehicle tires. Basically, busy work. From spring to autumn would be the 'hot patch' time of new macadam or whatever the lovely composite was that day. One just does not mistake the smell of hot, thick petrochemicals. The road crew would dump some in, tamp it down with shovels or a hand portable pounding rig and move on. The rare crew had a small steamroller. Such patches were more the norm than the exception on any road surface more than two or so years old, and many roads would just be a mass of hot patches laid down year on year. Kensington Avenue as it crossed into Buffalo was notorious as a wheel eater and under body scraper. The old joke went something like this:

A man was pulled over by the police as he drove along Kensington Ave. one winter evening. He rolled down the window and asked the officer - 'Why are you giving me a ticket? I was driving perfectly straight!'

The officer looked at him.

'Yeah, only a drunk drives straight on Kensington.'

Of all the winter perils beyond the blizzards and whiteout conditions was something even worse, and dreaded by everyone: black ice. That is the thin coat of ice that looks just like the road surface, until the moment you drive on it. Black ice got me once, very early on a curve on a backroad, making a nice gentle curving turn at 20 mph or so... suddenly the car spun and I was driving in the correct lane in the opposite direction. Faster than I could blink an eye and the white and grayness swirled on the curve as the car spun around. That Volare was a piece of junk and had no stability during the winter until you put 50 lbs of kitty litter in the back. I upped it to 100 lbs and that helped. That car was junk and a rust bucket, perfect for a beginning driver.

A few years later I had the old 'emergency avoidance maneuver' in a VW Rabbit. Now *that* was a car to drive! Compact, FWD and able to corner like nobody's business and didn't need much kitty litter, either. Its nimble maneuvering had gotten me out of one jam earlier and the second time was something to give one the shakes. Driving down Bailey Ave. headed towards the Amherst Campus I was in the left lane on a dry road. The previous snowstorm a few days earlier had been cleared out, salt laid down and everything was looking great. Someone was pulling out of UB Main Street and as they turned to enter traffic the rear of their car just lost it and they spun... and spun... and spun. Obviously an out-of-towner! What was worse is that they would be in my lane ahead of me headed towards me, and the old driving reflex pulled me hard to the right to avoid them. Up and over the curb and I glanced out the window as I saw the front of their car pass about 6" from my door and the horrified faces of the driver and passenger as their car spun by me. Hard back left and I was in the right lane still headed merrily along, fingers white on the steering wheel. The next time I had the car to the shop I was told that I had sheared both the front struts and they could not believe that I had driven a month like that without the car collapsing. I treat cars well and they help me survive, what can I say?

The last bad time in Buffalo was on the Thruway, headed past the Sheridan exit headed towards Main St./Kensington Ave. Snow still falling hard during a blizzard and coming from the Amherst Campus I had gotten stuck in the center lane which was good traveling unless one needed to exit. Which I, unfortunately, did. I passed the car on my right and made sure it was well behind me and started to ease over... between the lanes was a good, thick layer of snow about 6" deep, I would guess. A sharp turn could be very nasty, very quickly, even at low speed, so an ease-over at 30 mph should be safe. Right up until the wheel hit something and jerked the steering wheel around. I recovered but too late, as the 360 dance of Buffalo had begun. I counted 4 full turns and the angle was enough to head me to the roadside and out of the oncoming car's way. I did counter-steer but that is basically useless, although it makes one feel good if an incredible stroke of luck happens and the rear of the car hits solid pack snow. No luck and the final quarter-turn had me facing out into the road, safely out of the lane. Then the car stalled. Once I got over the shakes and started up the car so I wouldn't freeze to death, I waited for a break in the slow moving traffic, and got back into travel mode: one does not let mere winter take over your reactions and if you survive any bit of its jolt, just drive on.

That is one great thing you learn about life in Buffalo: no matter what you do, it can be over in an instant. Being a competent driver is not enough on the roads. And all that 4WD does is make you cocky until you realize that your braking time, even with ABS, is lengthy. My first car with ABS actually only needed to do some amazing work once, and that was to stop because a damned semi had thought the road was open for his wide turn. I would have been able to stop without the ABS, but it did let me know it was working. No matter where you come from, if you drive one winter in Buffalo you will gain winter driving skills. Even on basically *nice* winters, you will gain that and needing to have in a small shovel, kitty litter (or faerie dust as I call it due to its properties to supposedly increase traction if you get stuck), blanket or sleeping bag and some survival rations. That outlook and those skills have gone through the last day of open roads in Yellowstone where many a 4WD car and truck were seen in the ditches, and yet my Honda Civic Wagon just tootled merrily along. Lovely to see such high price vehicles stuck to the side of the road or in ditches or on an embankment, awaiting the tow-truck... or spring... while I got to play 'slot car racer' along the dense ice roads.

Those are some of my rambling thoughts and memories from my life in time in Buffalo, NY.

No point to them... just to get them down.

Because this is a place to store my thoughts and memories.

Sphere: Related Content

The opposite of Progress on the Global War on Terror is Congress

It turns out that someone is getting hurt in the anti-drug war and is going to seek Congressional help! Yes a little beat-up organizations is feeling 'the pinch' and wants relief from Congress. And who might this little, woebegone group be? From 2 MAR 2007 Strategypage:

FARC Lobbies the U.S. Congress

March 2, 2007: Having lost so much popular support in Colombia, FARC is trying to win a victory in the United States. With Democrats back in control of Congress, FARC now has a chance to seek cuts in military aid to the Colombian government. FARC lobbyists stress right-wing atrocities, civilian casualties and the futility of trying to stop the drug trade, to leftist American legislators. This often works to get cuts made to anti-drug and anti-FARC operations in Colombia. If FARC can get these cuts, the government offensive against FARC will be weakened, giving FARC more time to come up with a plan to revive itself.

Yes the poor saps known as FARC, just common ordinary terrorists working their Communist ways and using narcotics trafficking to keep their organization going. Now here would be a chance for Democrats to show that they have some calcium in their gelatinous bodies Upon the Hill and let FARC know that they are still held accountable for things they have done to the US! Here are a few fun incidents from the Terror Knowledgebase on FARC:

Incident Date: May 23, 1984

COLOMBIA. Nine bombs aimed at U.S. and Honduran targets exploded in Bogota and Cali, killing two people and injuring 11. Two bombs exploded near the U.S. Embassy, and a car bomb heard five miles away exploded 200 feet from the U.S. ambassador's residence. The Revolutionary Armed Forces claimed responsibility for the bombings in a telephone call. All the casualties occurred in one incident, when a bomb exploded in the downtown offices of the Honduran airline SAHSA. The two dead and three of the injured were among a group of young people that brought the bomb into the office.


Incident Date: Oct. 8, 1987

COLOMBIA. Two young Americans were kidnapped by members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). They were released on August 14, 1988.


Incident Date: Sept. 22, 1994

COLOMBIA. Military helicopters carrying the Colombian Defense Minister, a US Assistant Secretary of Defense, the US Ambassador, military commanders and journalists were fired on by FARC guerrillas while touring anti-narcotics operations in Caqueta Department. One of the five helicopters was hit but not downed.


Incident Date: Sept. 28, 1994

COLOMBIA. An American man was kidnapped by FARC guerrillas in Cauca province.


Incident Date: Jan. 19, 1996

COLOMBIA. An American citizen residing in Colombia was kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas. He was released 4 months later.


Incident Date: Dec. 11, 1996

COLOMBIA. An American geologist {Frank Pescatore} was kidnapped in Hato Nuevo, La Guajira Dept., from a gas exploration site. Another American escaped capture. Colombian workers at the plant were unharmed. The body of the kidnapped geologist was recovered in February 1997. The 59th Brigade of the FARC are suspected.


Incident Date: Mar. 23, 1998

Ten Colombians, four US citizens, an Italian, and a Mexican were kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) at an illegal roadblock set up between Santa Fe de Bogota and Villavicencio. The ten Colombians were released. The US citizens have been identified as Louise Augustine, Todd Marks, Peter Shen, and Thomas Fiore; the Italian identified as Vito Candela; and the Mexican has yet to be identified.


Incident Date: July 30, 1998

Seven councilmen from a remote village in northern Colombia were taken captive by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and forced to participate in the takeover of the US Embassy public area. The hostages were later released through the intervention of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International and Colombia's humanitarian organizations.


Incident Date: Feb. 25, 1999

The 45th Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) claimed responsibility for kidnapping three US citizens, identified as Terence Freitas, Ingrid Inawatuk and Larry Gay Laheenge, on a road between Cubara and Saravena (on the border between Boyaca and Cesariare Departments). The three were members of a New York-based organization that defends the U'wa people, a community that has not permitted multinational companies to explore oil resources in their territory and had come to the U'wa territory upon the group's invitation. Note: El Espectador reports that their bodies were found in Guasdualito, Venezuela (near the Colombian border).


Incident Date: Aug. 30, 2000

A low-powered bomb was found and defused near the House of Justice in Cartagena on the day that US President Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit the building. Police suspect the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is responsible and that the device was supposed to spread pamphlets against Clinton when it exploded. Note: On 15 March 2001, two members of the FARC were arrested and accused of plotting to carry out this attack against Bill Clinton. The two men arrested were in possession of dynamite and planned to carry out an escalation of attacks against banks in Cartagena.

Incident Date: Feb. 13, 2003

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas shot down a small airplane with four US government personnel and one pilot from Colombia. It appears likely that the Americans were intelligence officers on a routine mission near Caqueta, a drug producing area. The attack was planned by the deputy commander of the Teofilo Forero column, which primarily conducts urban operations. The pilot and an American were shot; the other two were kidnapped. Note: The names of the three Americans shot down were released in April 2003. Keith Stansell, Marco Gonzalves and Thomas R. Howes, civilians doing drug surveillance for the Department of Defense, have been missing since they were shot down on 13 February.

Incident Date: Nov. 15, 2003

One woman was killed and seventy-three others injured, including four Americans, when two grenades where thrown into separate night clubs. It was reported that two men, one who was apprehended later in the evening, threw a grenade into the Bogotá Beer Company bar and seconds later threw another grenade into an adjacent bar, Palos de Moguer. Initially it was unknown who was targeted in the attack but two days later the AP reported that off-duty American contractors were the intended victims. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are believed to have been behind the attacks. It was reported on November 19 that Arturo Montano, a member of the FARC, who was captured the evening of the attack, confessed to his involvement. He also claimed that there were three other FARC members involved who were planning on throwing a total of eight grenades into various bars in the area. He speculated that the commotion caused by the grenades he threw forced the others to flee before throwing their grenades. He did not specify what motivated the attacks.


Incident Date: May 18, 2006

The Colombian authorities believe that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) are responsible for four coordinated bomb attacks in Buenaventura. In this incident, an explosive was detonated at a Police Immediate Attention Center (CAI) where one policemen was wounded. The other bomb attacks were carried out in the same city and in the same time frame at court offices and two commercial centers. There were no casualties reported for those attacks. However, there were other press reports on attacks in Buenaventura by the FARC in the same time period. It is not clear whether these attacks are additional attacks or correspond to the above mentioned attacks. Sources: El Tiempo, 19May, Caracol Colombia Radio 20May The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) detonated bombs injuring 16 people and causing damage to buildings. There have been several FARC attacks in Buenaventura to interrupt the election campaign. According to reports, FARC hired children between the ages of 8 and 12 to throw the grenades at selected targets. The children were allegedly paid 20,000 pesos each. Reports have also mentioned that Valle del Cauca governor Angelino Garzon said that 26 people had died in the recent violence in Buenaventura.

Quite the list, isn't it? And it isn't even a complete listing as I have left out attacks against those working for US businesses, religious institutions and the such like. Just to give it a quick summation of what the list entails:

• Wanton destruction of US Government property


• Random terror acts that harm US Citizens


• Targeting US Citizens for kidnapping


• Murdering US Citizens


• Targeting US Government Officials for murder


• Invasion of the sovereign grounds of the US Embassy


• Shooting down civilian aircraft on legal flight plans


• Attempted assassination of a sitting US President


• Using children to fight for you

Of the last five only the last one is *not* a casus belli, but a war crime in and of itself. You see these are such lovely and wonderful folks just being 'unfairly targeted by right wing death squads', while being quite handy in killing and slaughter on their lonesome against their own people.

But it doesn't *end* there. That is just the beginning.

From the Mr. Mark Steinitz at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the folks who can point to problems and describe them but not solve them so well, comes this paper:

Policy Papers on the Americas:
Middle East Terrorist Activity in Latin America -
Volume XIV, 2003

As you may of guessed it has all sorts of lovely goings-on with various groups detailed, but let me concentrate on FARC (p. 11):

In late 1998, Colombian police discovered that an Arab male detained for illegal documentation was Mohammed Abdel Aal, an IG member, again wanted for the Luxor attack. He was quickly deported to Ecuador and reportedly was later turned over to Egyptian authorities. Aal may have been trying to contact the leftist Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Yes, just a mere 'purported contact'. But do remember that Hezbollah is under the control of Iran and so when you get to things a year later... well, anyone who read my partial summary of the year 2000 RFE/RL archives, will know the kicker (p. 12):

Perhaps the most bizarre episode of recent Middle Eastern terrorist interest in Colombia involves Iran and the FARC. In 1999, the government of President Andres Pastrana approved an Iranian offer to build a large beef processing and refrigeration facility in the heart of the FARC’s demilitarized zone, which had been established to facilitate the country’s then-ongoing peace talks. The ostensible aim was to export large quantities of meat to Iran. Bogotá purportedly saw the plant as a much-needed foreign investment and as a “carrot” to give the FARC an incentive to negotiate in good faith. The FARC was enthusiastic about the idea because it called for construction of a large airstrip in its Switzerland sized zone. The Iranian connection, however, raised concern in Washington, and after reconsidering, the Pastrana administration shelved the project. The venture was inherently suspicious. Most of the Colombian cattle industry is located more than 300 miles to the northwest of the now-abolished rebel zone. Iranians involved in the meat plant venture resisted searches of their bags at Bogotá’s airport. One resident of the FARC’s zone with a keen interest in the meat plant was Dr. Carlos Ariel Charry, who ran a clinic. Charry was subsequently arrested in Mexico in 2000 for representing the FARC in a deal to send cocaine to Mexican traffickers in return for arms.

The FARC’s links to Middle Eastern terrorists do not appear as extensive as those it has forged with European groups, such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and probably Basque Fatherland and Freedom (ETA). Nevertheless, the FARC has likely worked with Islamic radicals as part of its arms procurement activities. In the late 1990s, the Colombian rebels established a drugs-for-guns exchange with major Brazilian trafficker Luis Da Costa, whose criminal ties included Middle Eastern money launderers with reported links to Islamic radicals in the tri-border area. The past several years have seen investigations of FARC representatives in both Brazil and Paraguay for involvement in arms deals. Colombia’s terrorist groups frequently use Panama with its Colón Free Zone to acquire and ship arms. Hizballah’s presence in the zone makes it highly plausible that contact would occur as a result of a mutual interest in weapons and other contraband.

Funny thing, isn't it, to build a meat packing plant hundreds of miles away from where the cattle are and right in the middle or an area held by FARC. From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty on 17 January 2000, Volume 3, Number 3, at Globalsecurity:

According to ABC News, the U.S. government also was concerned that the facility would be used for terrorist-training. U.S. concerns are not baseless. Similar facilities were used by Iran in Bosnia and Romania as cover for intelligence operations. There also was concern that the FARC or Iranians operating with it might link up with Hizballah organizations operating in Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 27 December 1999).

What, an Eastern European connection? Why, yes, and even this isn't a surprise to anyone who remembers the testimony of Ralf Mutschke, Interpol's Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence Directorate before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on 13 DEC 2000:

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, an important alliance was formed between Colombian drug cartels and the Sicilian Mafia. Since the cocaine market in the U.S. was saturated, and because cocaine could be sold with higher profit margins in Europe, Colombians wanted to enter the European drug market. The Cosa Nostra’s well established heroin network was easily applicable to cocaine. In addition, the Sicilians had an excellent knowledge of European conditions and were able to neutralize law enforcement officials through bribery and corruption more effectively than the Colombians. From the Sicilian perspective, the alliance with Colombians was an opportunity to regain part of the market that had been lost to Chinese heroin traffickers. In recent years, South American drug cartels have been forming alliances with East European/Russian Organized Crime Groups in order to support and diversify their operations. East European groups have offered drug cartels access to sophisticated weapons that were previously not available. Helicopters, surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and even submarines are on the drug cartels’ "shopping list." The East European groups provided new drug markets in Russia, the former Soviet Republics, and Eastern Europe, while consumption was decreasing in the U.S. In 1993, Russian police intercepted a ton of South American cocaine which had been shipped to St. Petersburg by one Russian crime syndicate working with a Colombian drug cartel. In another example, a Russian crime leader was arrested in January 1997 in Miami by U.S. agents for the exportation of cocaine from Ecuador to St. Petersburg (Russia) and then to the United States. In exchange for these services, drug cartels pay for transactions with high quality cocaine. East European/Russian crime syndicates and corrupt military officers are supplying sophisticated weapons to Colombian rebels in exchange for huge shipments of cocaine. Although the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) receives most of the arms, some of them are distributed to Hezbollah factions.

Thus the interconnection of criminal organizations with terrorism is seen and contacts between FARC and Hezbollah confirmed by the meat processing plant and by the Interpol analysis of weapons and drug trafficking. What a twisted web that is! But something I have gone over in the over-view fashion with Template of Terror and Web of the supernote. Also seen in the CSIS paper is how Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and al Qaeda work with the existing ex-pat communities in South America from the Middle East. All of those groups are cited as currently in the process of standing up funding organizations and purchasing arms and equipment in South American Nations and working with folks like FARC via previous underworld connections created in Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania, plus using IRA and ETA individuals to offer credentials for these Islamic terrorist groups.

What sort of funding sources are we looking at? Back to the Interpol view on that:

Structural links between political terrorism and traditional criminal activity, such as drugs trafficking, armed robbery or extortion have come increasingly to the attention of law enforcement authorities, security agencies and political decision makers. There is a fairly accepted view in the international community that in recent years, direct state sponsorship has declined, therefore terrorists increasingly have to resort to other means of financing, including criminal activities, in order to raise funds. These activities have traditionally been drug trafficking, extortion/collection of "revolutionary taxes", armed robbery, and kidnappings.

Basically, everything that FARC currently does. Now as FARC may have problems actually doing things with the ex-pat Middle Easterners, that leaves those communities open to being exploited by their back-home terror groups.

And if Congress decides that trying to stop FARC is too hard, then Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda get the big green light to keep on expanding.

That will bode very ill for the future if Congress does not have any spine at all.

Sphere: Related Content

Old Europe and the Economist

H/t to Instapundit for pointing to someone commenting on this article at the Economist on 01 MAR 2007, "We were there for America". The quote comes from a Lithuanian, but is heard through much of the old Eastern Bloc Nations such as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and so on. They looked to America for hope because the rest of Europe was not looking to do anything to help *them* while they were under Communist rule. And some few felt that going back on having free-elections post-war is something that America had to be convinced of by Europeans. Western Europeans. The faith expressed in America comes from people who kept faith with the ideals of Freedom, which they saw as coming from America. I get that view from having talked with my relatives on the Polish part of the family and from their experience in going there and in exchanging letters. That is what the Economist expresses as 'Atlanticism'.

Where was Western Europe? Protesting against America, its military, its 'cultural imperialism' and all sorts of other odd things that they saw as wrong and nasty about the US. Mind you these same folks did not decry the USSR or Communism with that sort of vehemence or disdain, and often praised it and its 'liberal policies'. Thus, from that point of view I have hard feelings that the folks in Eastern Europe want to turn back the clock on those Freedoms and succumb to an all-encompassing bureaucratic State which treats everyone the exact same way they were treated under Communist rule. Even worse is the Economist's inability to actually understand the basics of history itself:

For a start, the crude division of Europe into “old” (anti-American) and “new” (Atlanticist) has hardly helped the still-shaky cause of reuniting the continent.

Could the fine folks at the Economist point to the last time all of Europe was united? Nazi rule came close, but still missed the Iberian Peninsula and, including the Italians, Egypt and large parts of the Middle East and Turkey. Before that? Genghis Khan didn't. Nor did the Holy Roman Empire. Or the Huns. Or the Goths. Or the Franks. But the Roman Empire? Yes, save for the northerly parts of the British Isles and the Scandinavian areas.

And here, using the basic view that the Economist is putting for the "Old Europe" concept, is the problem: Those people don't want to be 'united' in that way.

The Economist goes on from there:

The disproportionate presence of largely token ex-communist forces in the “coalition of the willing” has helped confirm the cynical chancelleries of old Europe in their view that the new democracies are gullible American patsies.

The implication of Romania, Poland and perhaps some other countries in the renditions scandal has blemished what should have been the new democracies’ strongest card: their commitment to human rights. How could those who had suffered in communist prisons collaborate now in the torture of other prisoners? The allegation may be outrageously unfair. But it has stuck in the minds of many.

Here I really don't understand what the Economist is getting at. Are these 'cynical chancelleries of Old Europe' unable to comprehend that one can fight FOR human rights? How about helping a Nation that has always stood firm for your own rights, kept Communism at bay and was castigated for it for decades? You know, as in a friend? Apparently this is too low-brow for these lovely 'chancelleries of Old Europe' and doing such a basic thing is actually betraying human rights in some way, shape or form.

And there is no such thing as 'token help' and any forthright help is appreciated and America understands that small Nations have little to give and so ANY support is appreciated. In point of fact the Eastern European Allies have taken on some of the toughest tasks of training Iraqi and Afghani police and the Poles, in particular, have served well and continuously by the side of the US throughout. The French, however, when asked to do a simple bombing mission in Afghanistan *refused*. Thanks, guys! Nice to know how far your support goes.

A strange universe that this Economist publication lives in:

The damage goes on. America’s role as guarantor of Europe’s security has been weakened. In western Europe, revulsion at the bloody and incompetent occupation of Iraq, coupled with a mixture of astonishing amnesia and lazy prejudice, has wiped away a shared history that stretches from the Normandy beaches to the end of the Berlin Wall.

Actually, the Polish friendship with the US stretches back to the US Revolution by sending Light Cavalry to the US to help out. Many Americans still hold ceremonies, albeit small ones, in commemoration of those brave Poles that came to Our Shores to help us become free. The Poles may, indeed, remember that the US lost 10% of its population DEAD to that war and sorrowed with us over those fallen. But then that was an incompetent war now, wasn't it? Seven years of bloody retreats and then five years having the entire thing near collapse multiple times. Yes, that was a shambles, complete and utter, and we really can't say how many died in debtors prisons in the States to pay for the high taxes with which to repay France.

But that is, perhaps, far too 'low brow' for these wonderful folks, so let us bring it a bit closer to the European doorstep. Why, through two World Wars and countless decades before that if not centuries, has Europe been unable to bring peace to the Balkans? Really, the amount of European blood that has been spilled over and around and in that region is an absolute shambles, that makes the US Revolutionary War seem like a cakewalk. And that is including all the Empires before WWI, the inter-War years, and after WWII. Those fine 'Old Europeans' haven't bestirred themselves one whit to actually find a way to bring some semblance of peace there and spend long years trying to even figure out if they can stand up a government in a place like Kosovo, while the US topples two tyrants, gets two Nations to the point where they can actually hold democratic elections, stand up their own fighting forces and help in their own protection while they fully get accustomed to this 'democracy' concept and 'personal freedom'. What is up with those 'Old Europeans'? Can't they even figure out how to help their next-door neighbors?

Apparently not, as those 'Old Europeans' wish to blame the US for taking out one regime that had supported, aided and housed those that attacked the Nation, and then take out a fascistic tyrant who not only would not be held accountable to a ceasefire, but broke his agreements multiple times and had no intention of actually coming clean on anything, returning POWs and captured Kuwaitis, and also aided, supplied and housed terrorists in his Nation. Poor 'Old Europe' wanted the sanctions to be lifted.

So they could get their money out of Saddam.

Far be it from me to put crass motives and views on the part of 'Old Europe' but France was left holding the tabs on Saddam Hussein because of all the wonderful equipment he purchased from them. With some pressure, perhaps, from Russia to capitulate as it, too, had a large bag of debt from Saddam. I am sure Germany felt some pressure, too, due to its debts from Saddam, though minor in comparison. The UK took it on the chin and did the right thing, absorbing the debts as a necessary 'lesson learned'. Wherefore art thou, 'Old Europe'? Why is it such a good thing to let murderous tyrants aiding terrorists go free from sanctions, just so that you can get a bit of debt back and have said tyrant help arm those that would attack you?

Now on the security front, the US did, actually, help another Nation to stand up after WWII. That is Japan. And we are now in the process of turning over their complete defense to themselves and will remain ready to help if they need it. Such lovely progress in only 60 years!! Yes, some day Germany will be able to do the same as well as the rest of Europe that was liberated. Take care of themselves.

Now this next part I actually AGREE with, but not in the way the Economist wants me to, I'm afraid:

Even in the new democracies, America’s standing has fallen. The cost and hassle of getting an American visa grates maddeningly. Polish and Estonian boys who fight side-by-side with Americans in Iraq are liable to be treated as potential terrorists and illegal immigrants when they want to visit. The administration has moved shamefully slowly on this injustice, and on military assistance to its eager allies.

Here I *do* want to see preferential treatment given to the Friends and Allies of the US that wish to come over, look around and maybe get hired for awhile. Possibly migrate if they wanted. Actually, I adore that idea of legal immigration from our current Friends and Allies, so as to help strengthen the bonds between our peoples. Our standing does fall when we do not show grace and honor to our Friends and Allies, no matter how small, and as a Great Nation the US should be able to show humility *and* thanks for the Friends and Allies that make us stronger as we help them to be stronger. That builds America and Freedom and Liberty.

Strange this next bit from these folks:

Yet, if the Atlantic bonds do weaken, the ex-captive nations will suffer the most. It was America that got them into NATO, and it is America that looks out for them now, much more so than nearer but less friendly countries such as Germany. Any suggestion that the east Europeans can rely on the European Union to stick up for them against Russian bullying is, on current form, laughable.

Well, perhaps if 'Old Europe' were a bit less "hostile" towards these new democracies you might actually be getting some place. And think a bit about trying to get this grand and glorious " cause of reuniting the continent" because the folks in these new democracies may not *want* to be part of a New Empire of Bureaucrats. They might prefer something a bit less distant and far more accountable than that which requires a Constitutional CD-ROM.

Again the Economist has this very strange view of history:

New radar gear and rocket interceptors planned for the Czech Republic and (probably) Poland will probably not do much to change this, You do not strengthen an alliance by pressing on your allies weapons that their public does not want. Helmut Schmidt, Germany's chancellor 20 years ago, thought that having cruise and Pershing missiles in western Europe would make America’s nuclear guarantee more credible. Instead, it cast America as the warmonger in the minds of the muddle-headed, and stoked peacenikery throughout Europe.

Now I do remember the protests galore over those missiles. Actually about US Armed Forces in general and how such things as war games shouldn't be held and that giving help to the US was making everyone worse off and that, really, the USSR wasn't that bad or evil! Yes, I do remember that! And does the Economist remember *why* the Germans had asked the US to put Pershing IIs in Germany? Does the term SS-20 ring a bell? And that Europe had no ready counter to same, so that short range nuclear missiles could be hitting in downtown Bonn in minutes... or Paris... or Rome... would you care to enlighten the world on that? And how those wanting 'peace' had little to say about the SS-20s but scads about the Pershing II?

Strange sort of 'peace', that. Wishing to be placed under the threat of nuclear attack with little to deter it locally. That actually sound more like 'willing accomplices to intimidation' rather than 'peace'. Very strange sort of 'warmonger' that wants people to defend themselves and very strange sort of 'peace activists' who seek to capitulate towards tyrants.

Then the Economist does a very interesting wind-up:

Barring an unlikely success in Afghanistan or Iraq, the strains on the Atlantic alliance will grow in the years ahead. The rivets have long been popping. Now great girders, such as Italy, are twisting and buckling. It was public anti-Americanism that brought down Romano Prodi’s government last week. Old Kremlin hands who remember how hard they once tried to destroy NATO must have trouble believing that the job is being done so well for them now by the alliance’s own leaders.

An 'unlikely success'? What is 'success' to the Economist? Could they please enlighten the world on that? Give this 'success' a bit more shape and form? Because, somehow, getting two Nations out from tyrannical and despotic rule, helping them on a path to democracy and personal freedom and in helping them to safeguard themselves against those who wish to see their Nations brought down and their people enslaved seems to be a route to long-term 'success'. And if a few pieces of 'Old Europe' go wobbly because they have no backbone for the fight *for* liberty and freedom, then they, perhaps, may find that they will lose same and need to fight to regain it. Italy has had many turbulent years and one government going under is nothing compared to what was happening when the Sicilian Mafia was being confronted and dismantled. About a government year in Italy for some number of years. If Russia wants to intimidate Europe, then 'Old Europe' may find the US standing with our Friends and Allies.

The ones who fight *for* freedom and liberty.

To help those who have been oppressed to stand on their own and help them safeguard their future. Unfortunately that gets you opposed by every tyrant, dictator, despot and thug that feels they have something to lose if people under them were free. But then I am sure that 'Old Europe' will remember itself as its own unintegrated foreign Muslim populations start to threaten liberty and freedom. They can't stand mere cartoons and react with the 'car-b-que'. Imagine what it will be like if you actually expect them to work for a living. I am sure 'Old Europe' will start to remember things. Let us hope it is before it needs to resort to the Cordon sanitaire within your own Nations. Too bad you haven't learned to stand on your own two feet, like Japan.

America was there twice for Europe and then a third, long stand during that Cold War.

And if you can't get your own house in order with those unassimilated immigrants who would love to balkanize Western Europe?

Perhaps you may remember the Poles who stood at Vienna.

Because the Poles certainly do.

Sphere: Related Content