Terrorism: the good, the bad and the ugly

I do enjoy Mr. Robison's posts on the state of al Qaeda! And his latest at American Thinker, A Quiet Triumph May be Brewing, is no exception, and I deeply thank him for sharing his knowledge and background with us, so that we can gain some insight into what the media and punditry is, in general, missing.

Mr. Robison's articles are some of the most informative analysis I have seen on the topic of the coherency of al Qaeda as an organization and address much in the way of the smaller, support organizations that are necessary to make al Qaeda effective. That is part of the 'affiliate network' that many saw al Qaeda bringing closer to centralized operations just prior to and after 9/11. Clearly that network of affiliates has shifted emphasis away from the central portion of al Qaeda, and that portion has lost nearly all of its old mujahideen based knowledge. As we see younger and younger operatives appearing in higher positions of authority after older operatives are removed (either via arrest or direct attack) the actual knowledge basis for controlling and coordinating high level attacks is disintegrating. In my review of Mr. Robison's previous article I looked at that and the cost of actually having a trained terrorist operation, even on the 'shoe-string' basis that al Qaeda works on.

While Mr. Robison concentrates on the higher level phenomena, I also tend to see the local conditions as guiding to actions and activity: multiple operations from separate sources of activity can coalesce into a direction without higher level guidance. This differences in viewpoint do offer different spectra that can often be recombined to come to a larger understanding of the events in question. I will say that no matter what the actual movement of the events are, the results have been highly encouraging in regards to al Qaeda for the past year. As an organization al Qaeda has had severe problems mustering operational knowledge for large-scale attacks and appears to be playing to its weakness: combat.

The 'flypaper' strategy of Iraq, that many pointed to in 2003-04 as a rationale for going into Iraq only works if al Qaeda actually feels that such an operation would give long term threat to it and its goals. By 2005-06 that this was the case is unquestionable, as al Qaeda had Zarqawi, one of their more brutal but effective terrorist operators, in Iraq. The arms, supplies, personnel and logistical support that was provided to al Qaeda via Syria and, to a lesser degree, Saudi Arabia and Iran, demonstrated a high-level commitment by al Qaeda to operations there.

Conversely, by deemphasizing Afghanistan, and standing up a locally backed government via the traditional pre-Soviet overthrow means, and then training and operating with the Afghan forces, the COIN (Counter-Insurgency) work there has gained a local face and support base, even when it is foreigners doing some of the advanced fighting. Even though this has had its critics, saying that 'Afghanistan is where the actual fight is', al Qaeda demonstrated that the 'Front' was wherever they wanted to deliver fighters, arms and equipment. That was *not* Afghanistan, but Iraq. To keep that 'Front' effective, al Qaeda utilized Zarqawi's existing network from his previous work, Jund al-Sham and Tawhid and Jihad, to augment and integrate into the existing al Qaeda system of the Ansar al-Islam organization established in the late 1990's. In Afghanistan while al Qaeda did stage operations, most of the combat work was left up to the Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's operations Hezbi-e-Islami and the al-Badr organization. Hekmatyar, himself, has played a key role as financial backer and supporter of the Talibe and al Qaeda, of which the latter does not like his narcotics trafficking all that much (and yes they do it too, the leadership is, apparently, schizophrenic or willing to sacrifice drug purity for cash).

That sets the stage for Mr. Robison's information from Internet Anthropologist, that the US told Pakistan that we had the coordinates for the training camps in Pakistan run by al Qaeda (and a couple by the Taliban) and were going to do something about it. And I do agree that those individuals moved over to the old Tora Bora complex, which is now finding itself semi-sealed off. A perfect training opportunity to see how the exfiltration skills for mountain terrain are! For those being trained, however, a failure on the report card does tend to mean a loss of life...

One obvious thing that does need to be pointed out, however, is the COINTEL (Counter-INTEL) work done by releasing the information to Pakistan, originally. That is: to find the leakers. If Mr. Robison and IA are correct, and I have no reason to think otherwise, the US has purposely released information to see how long and what Pakistani groups know about it and when so as to start the COINTEL process of finding and removing the leaks in the Pakistani government structure, mainly in the intelligence service (ISI). Coalition forces have proven very effective along the southern tier of Afghanistan from Khandihar and environs, so the routes to Iran may not have been ones that semi-trained terrorists would want to hazard. That left only the northern routes to Afghanistan, Tajikistan (via northern Afghanistan, unlikely, yes...), China and Kasmir as likely routes.

This is one of those lovely chances to combine COIN with COINTEL and get a twofer: find the leaks in the ISI by monitoring likely leakers via SIGINT and ELINT, and monitor the camps (if I remember two did not depopulate completely, but a training cadre remained in them) and the movement of personnel who would believe they were under emergency evacuation. That the US actually had the coordinates of the bases I do not doubt and they are now, most likely, under semi-automated watch for changes before winter hits. I do doubt that major attacks on these bases were intended, because the INTEL that can be gathered for both COIN and COINTEL is without price. The US had previously established UAV dominance in the area (as seen by the numerous complaints from Pakistan of same), but no one wanted to do anything about them or they were replaced with higher elevation or 'stealth' models, or replaced with actual Special Ops forces and very low level tactical UAVs although that is doubted due to the number of places to be monitored.

Such INTEL should have identified the major and minor traffic routes (moving personnel from 29 camps nearly overnight would tax any transport system), and would also serve to get clear identification of group size and affiliation. This will not only aid future surveillance (automated/semi-automated) but will allow for better connections to be made both backwards and forwards as more individuals are known. The forward individual sets would be those necessary to prep/supply Tora Bora for this influx, and finding who those people are in Afghanistan will allow for logistics supplies to be found and cut off at their sources and to start putting local pressure on the tribes involved. The backwards component, however, is interesting, as all of these individuals that are foreigners had to get to the camps *somehow*: the teleporter has yet to be invented, therefore air/sea/land movement of these individuals will leave an identifiable trail especially from air/seaports.

To take a temporary break from the in-country analysis for a bit, there is one thing that has bothered me since 2001: the shipping component of al Qaeda. One of the things that al Qaeda purchased during the 1990's was transport aircraft for movement of personnel and equipment from Afghanistan to Africa. Sayed Waqar Hasib from Tufts University puts together the entire al Qaeda organization for finances (the paper as a master's thesis is quite thorough) and uses the al Shamal money transfers for aircraft purchases as an example. Given the state of the aircraft industry and the number of older airframes on the market, especially in Africa, the ability of al Qaeda to purchase one or more aircraft is certain. At least two of the Boeing 707 class of aircraft (used for sizing and age, actually purchased airframes may vary) were acknowledged just after 9/11, as al Qaeda transported not only personnel and weapons, but also their gold reserves via such. Also reported at the time were 6 or more cargo vessels, most likely in the Indian Ocean basin, that al Qaeda either owned or leased via front companies. As far as my knowledge goes, no one has actually tracked these vessels down, and it would seem that they would be a high priority to find, given the penchant of al Qaeda for utilizing such for destructive purposes. That is why the backtracking of personnel movements is important: finding those vessels would be a top priority for the US Armed Forces and FBI.

Ok, back to the topic at hand: the breaking up of al Qaeda.

One thing not addressed so easily is the move of al Qaeda in the last few years to start supporting terrorists in Kashmir and taking a rhetorical 'hard line' against China. This is an interesting shift as, heretofore, the West was seen as the main evil by al Qaeda. Thus shifts, even after their big releases of interest by bin Laden and Zawahiri against the West, are happening. Rhetoric against the West, however, is proving difficult to sustain because the investment of men, equipment and cash into Iraq is degrading the al Qaeda command and training ability not only in Iraq but globally. The 'best and brightest' have been sent to Iraq and, regularly, killed/captured along with large chunks of their personal organization. Anbar province turning was a major strategic and tactical loss for al Qaeda. Worse is the self-declared capitol of the 'Islamic Republic of Iraq' (or whatever they are calling it today) and its province shifting hard against it. Diyala province and Baqubah 'flipped' as the 1920 brigades, the motley group of locals that hated the US until al Qaeda started killing their families, started serving as scouts and gaining HUMINT for not only the MNF but for IA and ISF. The Iraq Awakening based movement of tribes in Anbar taking control of things by utilizing tribe/clan/familial ties is now at work in the mixed sectarian province of Diyala.

Beyond the loss of the asserted capitol, al Qaeda was doing 'ethnic cleansing' against Shias. That was a major tripping point as the tribes cross sectarian boundaries. This is also seen in the areas south of Baghdad in the 'Triangle of Death', which is a major mixing point of tribes and sects. There sect matters more than tribes, but only to a degree: the tribes, themselves do not affiliate exclusively by sect and do need to work together and have done so in the past. What this points out is a major weakness both in the al Qaeda and Iranian backed JaM, 'Secret Cells' and Hezbollah. These organizations do not understand the nature of Iraq's society at its lowest level and, lacking that understanding, coercion has limited utility over time unless nothing opposes it. With the MNF and IA/ISF/IP now standing up and hard to oppose the terrorists and killers, that societal basis is gaining strength. Even in the cities, where tribe ties are weak but still present, this is happening and Baghdad, itself, is undergoing this transformation as local leaders stand up to represent neighborhoods and districts.

al Qaeda, strangely, has proven just as myopic in its view of Iraq as the Western Left has: both see tribalism as something that is inherently violent and only amenable to force. That is not the case, however, as the history of the US and Europe should point out. The family and clan affiliations in the Southern US are extremely strong, along with parts of Appalachia all the way up to Maine. You are not a 'local' in Maine until your family has lived there for three or four generations and then you are 'newbies' for another two or three generations. What, you thought that everything was nice and cozy metropolitan views in the US, all civilized? In the Western reaches of the US, from the desert South West through the Basin and Range all the way up to the Eastern parts of Cascadia, a similar set of views somewhat less family based, and more small town oriented yields similar results. People do, indeed, turn out in huge numbers for local High School games and enjoy such matches as it gives community affiliation and good natured rivalry, while rarely resulting in bloodshed. In Iraq things are, perhaps, closer to Ireland and Scotland prior to the 17th century, but it is those roots that show up time and again in the US. Likewise the various Eastern European Nations have seen similar and the Balkans remains one of the most ethnically, religiously and socially divided places on the planet. The West still *has* these roots and utilizes them, often negatively, but they are a positive force for social coherency and localized understanding.

Between the ancient Highland Clans of Scotland and the High School football games of Texas lies the societal underpinnings of Iraq. It is in a different language or set of languages, has different religions, and is in a far different part of the world, yet the tribal based system is one that is more than amenable to governing, government and being held accountable to actions. It is this last that a large swath of terrorists have ignored and are now paying the price for ignoring. In trying to see the world as all one thing, be it 'Global Ummah' or 'World Proletariat' those that try to enforce top down and dictatorial forms of government need to have a bloody hand when dealing with tribes. Work with tribes, build social cohesion and accountability into the government and utilize democracy to strengthen that system, while not excluding any from being a part of it, and any top down structure will fail in the face of that. Iraq is becoming the killing fields *of* terrorists: they are going there and dying at a rapid rate and local recruitment is slowing with the turning of Iraqis against these organizations. This is not the 'Ummah' coming together in Jihad or the 'Workers' uniting against the Imperialist... this is the families and tribes saying 'We have had enough of the killers'.

This is patently *not* the 'flypaper' that so many envisioned going in: with the US doing an inestimable job of figuring out the terrorism support mechanisms and getting rid of them before they could do much of anything. No, that world in which the US actually knew what Iraq was like did fail to materialize even if the 'flypaper' itself would work, but from this far different angle. You see that idea going in did not address the fly generators inside Iraq: the pre-existing organizations, like the Badr organization and Ansar al-Islam, although it was probably thought those could be easily handled. Almost immediately we got the Sadr folks, and problems from the get-go in Umm Qasr and Basra, then things only on a slow boil until al Qaeda could get roots down faster than they could be uprooted. Today the areas that host al Qaeda are addressed by Iraqis who are now putting in tips and information on whereabouts at a phenomenal rate. In the southern areas this is also leading the Shia tribes to start looking for the 'Awakening' concept there and they have knowledge of those tribes making it work. This is not 'flypaper', but the first hard breaks in Islam against the terrorist elements not only on the Sunni/Salafist/Wahabbi side, but also on the Shia side as well.

I will go back to my older analogy of the Faultlines of the Middle East as, being a geologist, I understand that a little bit better. With the view coming in from Western culture that the Sunni/Shia faultine predominated in Iraq, the concept was that this was going to be a 'civil war' that might see a 'three Nations' as an outcome. When first looking at the area, this faultline concept pressed by the MSM and punditry proved to be false, and as time wore on the depth of Iraqi tribal society must change that view. While external actors have attempted to shift this Middle Eastern sectarian faultline to cleave Iraq, the forces being Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia, instead that faultline has petered out in size and strength and the other faultines, the tribal ones, are starting to end the main sectarian one's movement. Short of a few nuclear devices removing a number of Holy Sites in Iraq, there is now a final shifting of those faultlines there and due to culture. That culture is now pushing back and the ramifications in Islam, over time, will not be small. The next decade in Iraq are critical on a global scale for Islam as there are finally coming to the forefront large numbers of Moslems saying *no* to those wishing divisiveness and death.

It is something that happens on both sides of the sectarian faultline and the changes in alignment due to the tribal and cultural nature of Iraq will be profound. Iraq, along its Ancient Culture faultline, holds one pre-eminent position amongst all other regions in the Middle East: that of the center of learning for the Arab and Islamic cultures. If al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, JaM and the rest of those terror organizations are held and stopped and pushed back in Iraq by Iraqis, there will be a hard shift from the monetary support centers provided by Riyadh and Tehran. The Wahhabi support of the Muslim Brotherhood goes back decades, and that has been a harshly radicalizing force in Egypt and the Middle East. The Shia side in Tehran has also been radicalizing, but along a more organized and centered front called Hezbollah. For at least five decades for the Wahhabi side and nearly three decades for the Shia, the funds to promote killing, torture and Islamic radicalism has gone unchecked in the Middle East. There was only a freezing counter of stalemate with a dictator in Iraq who used religion as a front, but not pressing it in any great way. With the removal of that and the people in Iraq seeing the results of decades of Islamic radicalism visited on them after decades of Ba'athist tyranny, one cannot help to wonder *why* it seems strange there would be a backlash against this concept of 'killing one's way to power'.

In Afghanistan the existing tribal structure there has not undergone similar stress, as it has in Iraq. That said, Afghan tribes are, if anything, stronger than their Iraqi counter-parts and have a fierce warrior streak as do the Kurds in Iraq. The ancient enmities between tribes and ethnic groups in Afghanistan are also far stronger than in the rest of the Middle East (say, who are you calling an 'Uzbeck'?), so in that way it is far closer to ancestral forms of clan and tribe in the West. Afghanis have proven to have resolution, however, against opponents and those attacking them, and that dates back centuries: they are one of the great peoples of high mountain warfare, and they know how to defeat Empires. That cultural view has limited the Taliban and al Qaeda, however, as it is not manly to attack as a suicide bomber against civilians. The majority of such attacks are done by outsiders, while the Afghan bombers stalwartly go after 'hard targets' and get a very low body count. The entire US operational view has utilized this and continues to for some very good reasons:

1) Mountain warfare is damned hard to learn, and requires months if not longer of stamina building at altitude.

2) Afghan tribes respect small groups of fighters and the US, coming in with a small operational footprint, won quick support because we were not coming in as an invading Army, but small organizational groups of operatives willing to show our weight-class punch.

3) By utilizing the Northern Alliance and using that to oust the Taliban, cultural animosities could be limited to those already existing because of (2) above.

4) Allies of the US had small organizational units trained for high mountain warfare and they all punch above weight-class (light infantry in small amounts can stop fully supported armored columns).

These things moved the fight into a 'traditional warfare' arena with the added bonus of aerial capability. Plus one key US Ally, the Canadians, see the idea of a 'winter campaign' as a good way to demoralize an enemy... clearly the Afghanis thought they were nuts. Just as clearly the decoherence of the Taliban and al Qaeda this spring and summer are due, in large part, to small force Canadian operations during the winter. Even with a very low body count, being forced to fight when tradition says it is suicide to do so, is dispiriting. Even worse when you can't even *find* your ground based enemy: they are better at it than you are. If you want to know who found and scouted the camps, ID'd individuals and such, look to the Canadians there and a hearty thanks to them! From that follows the COINTEL and COIN synthesis where we are today with al Qaeda/Taliban forces stuck in Tora Bora which, apparently, we spent some time mapping out after 2001-02.

This relatively small fight in and around Tora Bora is, just like the changing of tribal views in Iraq, a major tactical and strategic turning point against al Qaeda. If this breaks morale and support lines and removes a goodly portion of the fighters out of the mix, Pakistan is put in a nasty place where the entire network is placed down in front of President Musharraf and he is told: 'do this with us or against us, either way it will get done'. That will be a long list of individuals in the ISI, Pakistani government, tribal governments, military organization and some number of civilian organizations as well. While al Qaeda was going after the Red Mosque, the Coalition forces were figuring out how to finally pin down the major al Qaeda and Taliban networks. If President Musharraf steps down to be head of the Army, and vacates the civilian Presidency, then it is because he has decided to move and he wants someone *else* to take the fall of going against the tribes. The contrary is, however, not the case, in dropping Army head and remaining President, he just may want to blame the dirty work on someone else. Either way he is facing a nasty shock in the next month or two as al Qaeda and Taliban are tracked and targeted in 'hot pursuit'.

I discount, completely, that either al Qaeda or the Taliban having enough strength, contacts and logistics to fight and win a late fall campaign. They have not trained for a winter campaign and that will be the death of them. If the US fails to get a green light from Pakistan, I expect that small operational high mountain warfare groups will do as the Canadians did and prosecute a winter campaign privately. Perhaps some justification via the 'hot pursuit' or declaring, by the Coalition or Afghani government that the Waziristan provinces are lawless territories without official government.

This is a very good sea change against al Qaeda, to say the least. It is also promising that if the US and Coalition in Afghanistan and Iraq can keep the ball rolling, that a major change in the tide of Islamic terrorism will be halted in its upward rise for a few years....

A few years? Not permanently?

Yes, that is correct. Iraq can change the course of Islam by becoming a stable Nation that respects Sunni and Shia Islam, and that will then add it in as a third power force in Islam outside of Riyadh and Tehran. That is a three-sided war in which only one side will win.

al Qaeda, as 'the base' is still a centralizing concept in Islamic terrorism on the Sunni/Wahabbi/Salafist side. It has a major predecessor, that of Turabi in Sudan, who likewise served as one of the first catalysts for Muslim Brotherhood cross-connected terrorism. Even with his power in the wane and isolated in Darfur and the Islamic Courts Union losing their recent struggle in Somalia, he served as the incubator for al Qaeda while it was in Africa. Turabi, getting on in years, hasn't really kept a good hand in things, but his organization continues on his tradition, even with most of Turabi's glamor gone. That leaves the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been a main organization for ideology and training of terrorists, and serving as the centralizing connection between terrorist organizations.

While HAMAS is their direct outgrowth, that organization has spread tendrils into: Algeria, Syria, Jordan, Morocco, Bosnia and the Tri-Border Area of South America. al Qaeda's 'affiliate structure' of multiple, localized groups, all have other ties back to the Muslim Brotherhood. Ayman al- Zawahiri got his start with MB as a separate teacher/thinker that would influence a wide sphere of individuals. Even with the end of al Qaeda as a group of individuals, al Qaeda as a concept structure is already utilized by MB and its associate structure. That associate structure is not one of direct command and organizations, but centralizing of training and logistics contacts along with multiple 'spiritual leaders'. If al Qaeda as a structural entity 'dies' it will be 'reborn' in MB, not by the al Qaeda name, but it will have a recognizable component structure to al Qaeda.

This is one of the reasons that bin Laden having been reported to 'hand off' the head of al Qaeda to Iran seems improbable: not sectarian differences, but organizational and structural differences. Hezbollah operates along a better controlled line of authority and has created an interlocking structure of External Security Organizations under Imad Mugniyah for Hezbollah. These are not 'affiliates' or 'associates': they have direct ties and control lines to the Hezbollah superstructure. What has happened, however, is the slow shift over the last decade of command authority and monetary gathering outwards to create more independence in the affiliates. Although best seen in the South American structure, with ownership of malls and working in pirated software, similar structures exist in Bosnia and Algeria. The affiliates of al Qaeda are almost all independent operators willing to work together for common cause, but only via sectarian outlook. Hezbollah has a command and control structure like a Foreign Legion, that has multiple, internal, fall-backs and ability to distribute and localize organizations while still having centralized control. These are not simpatico operational perspectives: shoe-string operations love their independence and ideological purity while commanded structures prefer uniformity across the organization to work as an organization. Free lancers vs. Staff.

Does what we are seeing signal a major sea change in Islamic Terrorism?

Yes, but only if it is worked at and *hard* for a few decades. There are other, orthagonal, forces in science and technology that will change this equation, but the basis of it is being set today and those changes will need to be viewed taking those into account. Something like cheap space access in the next decade would change this equation in huge ways as would something very simple like a cure for AIDS. While both outside the realm of the ideological struggle as perceived *today* they would be incorporated and quickly into it. The slow disintegration and move towards government centralization in the US is marking a long-term threat to Western democratic principles at their base, and continued shifts in that direction will also have massive and unknown consequences, but not for the better. We write history as we go and without firmly fixing goals to head towards, we risk losing the gains made to the dissolution of our society.

Even more deadly is that the West has not paid any attention, at all, to the increasing destructiveness and lethality of non-religious based terrorism, which now, on a per-act basis, is where the Islamic sort started out. This blindness will hit hard when that ratchets up to gain the headlines that only Islamic terrorists used to get, due to body count. It does us no good to finally bring the religious terrorism under some sort of wraps and then have the non-religious sort blossom in lethality as it accounts for far more terrorist acts than the religious sort. And if its lethality goes up as it has over the last 30 years, then that will see a body count the religious sort could not get in pure, raw numbers.

It is very well and good that al Qaeda is facing hardships and problems, possibly even breaking up. al Qaeda is not all Islamic terrorism and not all Islamic terrorism is due to al Qaeda. And al Qaeda is only one of many very, very bad organizations on this planet and the non-Islamic sort have had to take the lead of al Qaeda and Hezbollah on body counts to get any attention at all. And there are far more of those sorts of terrorists around today than there are Islamic ones. This is not a point-specific problem, but systemic.

We will have plugged one hole!

The damned thing that is leaking IS a sieve. One hole just doesn't do it.

Sphere: Related Content

Break the law - get rewarded!

I am sure that most everyone has heard of Sen. Clinton's baby-bonus payment plan!

No?

The one where every baby born in America gets a $5,000 bonus, just for being born an American? It was done at the debate hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, so I am sure that it was a pretty straight bit of pandering... but consider the position of an illegal alien.

If you break the law to get to the US, and your baby is born here, you get $5,000 account for that baby FREE! That's right, you get PAID to break the law!

Isn't that splendiferous?

Say, I thought that Congress was supposed to be addressing the 'magnets' attracting illegals here, like undocumented jobs, free health care, refusing folks work because they don't speak Spanish...

Here in Northern Virginia, my neighbor (herself an immigrant from asia) is currently out of work and went to the county employment office to apply for work. She spent long years in line, getting paperwork processed, learning English and very proud to be an American. So, when she gets there, applies, they ask her ONE question: Do you speak Spanish?

No? Sorry there are no jobs available... that in a county with solid economic growth, decent business climate and expanding population.

Tell you what: remove the magnets and encouragement for folks to come here so that those that come here legally can get jobs. And as for State, Municipal and County Governments... drop the damned Spanish on jobs programs and encourage folks to 'speaka da english'.

And on the Federal side: do your damned jobs and enforce the law and end the MAGNETS to encourage illegal entry to the Nation. Maybe even toughen up the employer sanctions bit by, you know, ending the businesses doing this and tossing their management into the Federal Pen for a decade or three. A fence makes for good neighbors, too... a wall makes a fantastic neighbor, ask the Israelis.

Sphere: Related Content

Legislation without Law: What hath FISA wrought?

Our present condition, is, Legislation without law;
wisdom without a plan;
a constitution without a name;
and, what is strangely astonishing,
perfect Independance contending for dependance.

The instance is without a precedent;
the case never existed before;
and who can tell what may be the event?

The property of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things.

The mind of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts.

Nothing is criminal;
there is no such thing as treason;
wherefore, every one thinks himself at liberty to act as he pleases.

-Thomas Paine, Common Sense.
(courtesy the Gutenberg Project)

I have done some reformatting to let things stand out a bit in the above, as a minor artistic liberty. I do not think that Paine would object, overmuch.

The following is from ABC Political Radar of 27 SEP 2007:

Iraqi Insurgent FISA timeline: Probable Cause and the AG

ABC News' Jason Ryan Reports: The Acting Deputy Director of National Intelligence has sent a letter to the House Intelligence Committee revealing details on the gap in obtaining a FISA after 3 US soldiers were captured in Iraq on May 12.

The incident where the military was required to get a FISA warrant is a real world example in the FISA reform legislation being examined by Congress. The FISA legislation passed by Congress in August, the Protect Act, provided a fix to the government's ability to intercept foreign to foreign communications.

The letter from the acting Deputy Ron Burgess notes, "On May 14, 2007 as soon as the specific leads had been identified analysts began to compile all the necessary information to establish a factual basis for the issuance of a FISA court order as required by the emergency authorization provision of the statute."

"This case presented novel and complicated issues…This was the focus of the internal Executive Branch deliberations between 12:53pm and 5:15pm and the reason behind the decision to contact the Attorney General for emergency authority rather than the Solicitor General." Burgess wrote.

The letter to Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes also notes, "The Director used this example to illustrate the point that, due to changes in technology, the FISA statute extends privacy protections to foreign terrorists located outside of the United States merely because FISA makes a geographic distinction based on the location of the collection."

According to one intelligence official, US officials were attempting to intercept and review email and Internet communications of the insurgents. A career Justice Department official said tonight that the Attorney General needed to get to a secure phone and secure location before he could be briefed on the situation. A copy of the letter has been sent to the DC Assignment desk.

The key times attached to the letter:

May 12, 2007: :Three US solider were reported missing and believed to have been captured by Iraqi insurgents…SIGINT [signal intelligence] assets responded by dedicating all available resources to obtaining intelligence concerning the attack."

13& 14th: Intelligence community began to develop leads.

May 15: 10:00am "key US agencies met to discuss options for colleting additional intelligence."

10:52am: "NSA notified..DOJ of its desire to collect communications that require a FISA order…it was determined some FISA coverage already existed."

12:53pm to 5:15pm :"Administration lawyers and intelligence officials discussed various legal and operational issues associated with the surveillance."

5:15pm: DOJ's FISA Office the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) received a call formally requesting emergency authority to conduct surveillance."

5:30pm: "The OIPR attorney on duty attempted to reach the Solicitor General who was the Acting Attorney General while Attorney General Gonzales was addressing a United States Attorney's Conference in Texas. However the Solicitor General had left for the day and the decision was made to attempt to reach Attorney General in Texas."

OIPR contacted DOJ command center and requested to locate the Attorney General. "After Several telephone calls with the staff accompanying the Attorney General, the OIPR lawyers were able to speak directly with the Attorney General and brief him on the fact of the emergency request."

" At 7:18pm, the Attorney General authorized the requested surveillance, the Justice Department attorney's immediately notified the FBI."

"At 7:28pm, the FBI notified the key intelligence agencies and personnel of the approval."

"At 7:38pm, surveillance began."

Yes, you have read that correctly.

The lovely FISA concept covers terrorists in foreign lands communicating to each other and prevents the gathering of INTEL when US soldier's lives are at risk. This is covered in 50 USC Chapter 36, Section 1801 (and associated), text courtesy Cornell University Law School. In Section 1802 we get the procedures to do this:

(a)

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—


(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—


(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;


(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and


if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

Got that? So if you are in Iraq and need the assets of the greater INTEL Community to bear on a kidnap situation involving those illegally at war with the United States, and you are the Commander in the Field you first need to:

1) Contact your Command, either the overall commander for your operation, or the actual Command itself, in this instance CENTCOM.

2) That chain of command then, at sufficiently high level to review the assets available and finding that, indeed, in-Theater assets are not enough to meet this need, are to go to the Head of the Dept. of Justice, as US assets are being used for Foreign Intelligence gathering, or the President.

3) Dept. of Justice, getting a request for Emergency Authorization, which is the NSA contacting DoJ above.

4) To comply with FISA multiple lawyers from different Agencies (most likely FBI but also CIA, NSA, DIA, possibly DISA) need to discuss if this request can be done via an Emergency Authorization or needs to go through the normal 30 day waiting period....

At this point the decision of actually needing this to be done has already been determined by the Combatant Command (CENTCOM). This is a force-protection issue against those illegally at war with the US and that is the ONLY determination that should matter. As the Combatant Commands do not have enough manpower, equipment or infrastructure to perform National Intelligence, they need to rely upon the National Intelligence assets. By inserting FISA into this, the actual determination of need is taken out of the hands of the Field Commander and Commander of CENTCOM and has been delegated to civilian legal staff in Washington, DC.

I have a problem with this.

This is a clear crossing of the separation of powers mandated by the US Constitution so that the Commander of the Armies and the Navies, namely the President, can conduct war-time operations to protect the Armed Forces of the United States. Emergency tasking needs during Congressionally Authorized Use of Force situations should *not* have *any* legal overhead outside the UCMJ, and that should afford minimal protection to US Citizens in a warzone or area of high combat as those comms can be captured and used by *any* enemy to coordinate activities against the US Armed Forces.

An operation to task National Intelligence assets in the US can have an *automatic* compartmentation in the security structure, so that any Agencies or individuals needed can be tasked under military authorization for that need. By having separate tasking, utility and, indeed, information security overhead during that, all data is secured and recorded with full trail of why such information is needed, when it is gathered, what its sources are and what the resulting INTEL is. It is rare, indeed save for a very few individuals who have shifted allegiance to these illegal, predatory warfare organizations we call 'terrorist' that ANY US Citizen information should be picked up and those that are in that war zone or conducted as part of such an operation is SAFEGUARDED via the compartmentalization system. Any operation that does take more than a few days can be reported to the House and Senate Committees, probably both Intelligence and Defense, and that all information gathered is being done as necessary and will undergo legal review AFTER the operation is over, but done with the full knowledge of the Committees involved that it is going on.

By doing any other thing on the legal side, and by requiring that an operation taking place wholly overseas in a war zone needs to go through legal decisions by a group of legal counsel is *nuts*. These are the Armed Forces of the United States fighting to not only carry out the direct authorization of Congress but *also* looking to protect their own force structure and find their own people illegally captured and held by a predatory warfare organization.

So, by the time things finally get decided, over 6 hours have wandered by as *lawyers* discuss the legal niceties of protecting troops during wartime. The sweetness does not end *there* however.

5) With the actual concept that this NEEDED TO BE DONE, the folks at DoJ then try to find someone to sign off on it, which would be the Attorney General, as specified under law. But the Acting-AG was out for the day, by then and the AG, himself, was at a conference and had to be contacted.

Ever try to contact someone at a convention or conference these days? Most turn off their cellular phones and pagers, so as to not interrupt the conference. Otherwise you are caught like Rudy Giuliani actually trying to take a phone call while addressing large group of people or interrupting a speaker, or.... you get the picture. So the Acting-AG off, most likely on personal business after work and hard to get and the AG, himself, also hard to get....

6) One hour and forty eight minutes later they are able to TALK TO the AG! This is heading almost to 8 hours after the initial request was made.

7) The AG makes an Emergency Authorization and 20 minutes later the FBI can start helping out.

After that the AG and DoJ can take some time filling out the paperwork in 1804 and 1805, which looks to be a butt-load of paperwork to fill out with justification, needs and so on. Really the entire amount that needs to get generated and re-generated is awe inspiring. Plus in 1805, the AG has 72 hours to generate up this mound of documentation which, remember, he is given 30 DAYS to do as part of normal surveillance. That's right, you don't even get to put in an overview or summary, but the whole kit 'n caboodle... 30 DAYS of work in 72 hours. Or the surveillance STOPS.

Thomas Paine would call this 'legislating without law': Congress has no right to step in on the needs of the US Armed Forces for force protection and any US Citizen wandering around in a war zone or high combat area previously designated by the US has ZERO expectation of 'privacy' on personal communications. That is how war zones operate, in case folks have missed this in history class. When in one combatant forces will utilize any means they can to gain advantage, and when one side operates under NO Geneva Conventions or Hague Conventions and contravenes the Treaty of Paris 1856, it has gone a long way to indicate that it will stop at NOTHING to attack those that oppose them. Which includes NO respect for the rights of civilians, in case folks deploring IEDS/VBIEDS, chemical weapons attacks, sniping at just about anyone, and holding folks hostage for show and cutting their heads off for video cameras, (say, you folks trying to uphold the GC *have* noticed that, haven't you?) have forgotten what this enemy can do and will do to a mere civilian and that to try and have civilized forces *protect* you, your rights for private communications can be expected to be NIL.

Any law that is vague enough to not CLEARLY demarcate such activities in a war zone or area of military operations and *waive* normal procedures at the START of such law, is clearly intruding 'civil rights' into an arena where there are damned few and that respecting peace-time civil rights of those operating in, aiding or abetting illegal predatory war groups can expect to have themselves found out as doing so. Under *military law* as such individuals are taking part in war time operations. And such individuals who are *outside* the combat zone assisting such illegal organizations can *then* expect that information to be handed over to the Dept. of Justice that will then go through the FISA procedures, with the full acknowledgment and citation of military INTEL being the source of such surveillance needs.

Why is this important?

Because in JUN 2007, al Qaeda announced that two of the three captured soldiers had been killed and the third was also found dead at their hands.

When the US Congress can no longer write legislation to recognize the difference between war and peace-time INTEL gathering in support of field operations and force protection, it has failed its duties to protect the United States. Especially as this is put into the US Code Title 5o - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE.

You would think the name of that Title section would hand them a HUGE clue as to what this is about. Apparently, that is not the case.

Do expect the US to treat wartime just like peace time in the near future, and we will send out the FBI to fight for us, since they will be the only ones able to figure out the law as the Armed Forces will be too hamstrung to actually operate in a meaningful and effective form.

Thomas Paine named this directly in Common Sense: 'wisdom without a plan'.

Sphere: Related Content

When change is not progress

At the founding of the United States there was a clear and succinct voice that rang out beyond the great documents, beyond the Declaration of Independence. It was a voice of Revolution and yet a voice of warning, too. That voice with single clarity identifies, classifies and instructs on who we are, as a People, and how we view this world. It is a voice forgotten today, and many while noting the author, no longer note the words involved, as they were and are Revolutionary. Perhaps the best passage for our modern times comes from then, if we dare to read it:

Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them;
whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;
the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections,
the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one
encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first a patron, the last a punisher.

That writers is, of course, Thomas Paine and the quote is from Common Sense (via the Gutenberg Project), bolding is mine, unless otherwise noted.

A problem on the Left and the Right is to try and use government to enforce society, and social norms, instead of having government shift to our changing views as a People. Our society is given voice by who we are, what we want and how we approach life as a People. The government is an artifact of that process, made to ensure that our passions do not destroy our society, but not to enforce a view on the world upon that society. The major 'debates' of the last century revolved around the role of government in society, and in each and every case, MORE government intervention was chosen over LESS.

I have written elsewhere about the 10 years that changed the course of America for the worse, within that century. Starting in 1909 the US Federal Government expanded its powers over medications, to begin regulating what individuals could and could not do with their own bodies. Government put that forward via those organizations that supported them, mainly church groups seeing the ills of the Far East opium trade, and sought to end the trade by eliminating the demand. To do that, Nations had to agree to end the importation of such things and outlaw them for their peoples. The Federal Government, before that, could only tell manufacterers to list all ingredients in foods and medications, via the food and drug purity laws. That is how the government *should* act, so that the People have a truthful accounting of what they take in the way of food and medication. In proscribing certain medications to enforce a treaty, the Federal Government changed its role from that of supporting society to that of dictating to the greater society based on a religious outlook of ending the opium trade.

Instead of just taxing the hell out of the imports to try and dissuade Americans from using such things, the Federal Government went a route of authoritarianism against its own People to tell the People what was good for them. That was via the Harrison Act of 1914, to require 'stamps' for the purchase of these medications, and no stamps were ever produced or distributed. If you want the start of the 'Nannystate' then this is, perhaps, the first milestone in that. Would that such markers were so few and far between that they could not even be sighted one to the next. Suddenly a thing that individuals did, which was guiding their own use of medications, had become criminal behavior. Society could no longer be the patron of its own needs, and look after them, and government took up its role to punish those that contradicted that.

Also in 1909 would come Amendment XVI to the US Constitution that would allow the first formulation of taxation of individuals by the Federal Government to happen that would NOT be set by per capita tax, but by income. This would, in addition, remove the need of the Federal Government to go to the States to get income to run the Nation and allow the Federal Government to act in a fiscally independent mode from State based oversight. The 'power of the purse' for funding Federal Government shifted from the People and the States to the Federal Government. Previously the US had existed on tariffs and then asking States to make up the remainder based on an equal apportionment on a per capita basis. The States were left to figure out how the best way to garner that money was. Income tax, sales tax, property tax... the variety of taxes that could be levied varied and each State could figure out the best way to share the National burden for itself. The States, in separate or concert, could also WITHHOLD payments when Federal Government no longer addressed the needs of the States. That is an accountability power that Amendment XVI removed from play. Suddenly local government had lost its ability to hold the Federal system accountable to it, and the evils of local government were replaced by the distant and less accountable and larger evil of Federal Government.

Starting in 1911 would be the move to have the People directly elect Senators, and that would be ratified into the Constitution as Amendment XVII. This shifted a second, State-based, accountability factor from keeping Federal Government limited. While the appointment of Senators had always caused problems from the States, those were problems of localized, State based corruption that allowed the Federal Government to actually criticize the States for not doing their job of appointing Senators. A major question for democracy is: what happens when a major institution in a Republic is no longer strongly backed and yet is vital to the running of the Nation? The answer is NOT to change the place where the decision power rests, but that is what exactly, was done. Again, prior to this the Federal Government actually had to have its tenancies ham-strung by the States in their power to send or NOT to send Senators. If things are not getting done, perhaps it is the Federal Government's fault for not running itself well enough to gain backing by the States? Instead the People chose to move the corruption directly to themselves, so that Senators could now emulate their House colleagues in the ways of pork barrel politics.

Also in 1911 came Public Law 62-5 which would allow the US Congress to set a size that would be permanent, and no longer 'float' with the size of the population. That would have long term consequences which would remove from the House the need to address the changing size of the Nation and, instead, start to permanently divide the States into districts that would have a long range impact due to the shifting industrial basis of the Nation. The US was shifting from an agrarian system that was still the majority employer in 1911, to one in which manufacturing would be the major employer in the US in 1925. While the districts would be re-drawn to a degree to demonstrate that, those rural areas that had once had representation and would have retained that due to size of population in a proportion-based system, would now lose out in a fixed seat system. By amalgamating populations to craft new districts, distinction in populations on a rural basis was lost, even as cities gained more representatives due to the concentration of population. In a fixed proportion system with growing population, older areas that could retain their population base would retain representation, while in a fixed seat system they would lose that and need to have dissimilar towns and villages amalgamated into a larger district. The effect of that was not the marginalization of rural outlook, as it would be under fixed proportion, but the loss of diverse outlook from rural areas in favor of more homogeneous outlook based on dense, urban populations.

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Banking System would be instated, reversing the post-Civil War need for a Nationalized banking system for war finance and also reversing the veto of President Jackson on such a National Bank. In the system devised the Nation, as a whole, via its Federal Government is liable for its currency: thus financial obligations were now those of the Federal Government. This took the onus off of banks to have such equities go directly to them, but moved that responsibility to an unelected part of the Federal Government in the way of the distributed Federal Reserve Board. While this is a compromise, of sorts, to get some distributed representation into the banking system, it is not one that is directly accountable to the People and, instead, only by those passing appointment in the Senate as government officers. That is how the Federal Government controls currency and interest rates to adjust to financial conditions. In the intervening years from Jackson to Wilson, the main criticism of a Federal Bank was that it would be a majority ownership of overseas monied interests, which was the case with the First and Second Banks. While this system has prevented some 'bank runs' and alleviated 'bank panics', the question of the actual scope of government to do this is one that has not been well addressed. This is a change-over from a distributed, State integrated (or unintegrated as the case may be) system, being replaced by one of centralized control with limited district input. The accountability and tenure of such individuals appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate is not one that has been or is well addressed. While it is, no doubt, a change that adds stability, the cost of that stability remains unaddressed by the concentration of that power to the Federal level and away from the States.

Amendment XVIII in 1919 would be the only part of this suite to be repealed, as the temperance movement and anti-alcohol movement attacked the very grain and fiber of the Nation and its history in alcoholic beverages. What is even more amazing is that the actual use of alcohol was already on the decline from its high point in the 1840's, along with a shift from hard liquor to beers and wines. The generations that built the railroads, built major industrial bases, built the first industrialized cities, built transcontinental railways, and united this Nation was a hard drinking rough bunch that accomplished great feats while, apparently, being sloshed to the gills. Somehow this was painted as a demonic or 'bad' thing, and the attempt to sever the Nation from its societal roots with intoxicating beverages went too far. The short term effect of that, however, was to empower the first of the international organized crime syndicates with the easily made and transported alcohol that had been outlawed. Those crime organizations had already started to grow based on opium, heroin and then cocaine, but the supercharging of those organizations by adding in alcohol made them the very first threat to civilization succumbing to well armed thugs since the age of piracy two centuries and more previous to that.

Each of these instances is an attempt to enforce a 'societal good' or an 'easement to government' that would, each in their own way, remove decisions from individuals and concentrate power into the hands of the corrupt and unelected on a National scale. These changes did not *stop* in that era, and, indeed, some were to come forward that would be even worse than the original problems in their long term corrosion of the society of the nation in favor of the government of the nation. I will look on that in a moment, but take time to look back to Thomas Paine, again, further on in Common Sense, where he proposes a new system for government, which is a striking outline for the House, Senate and Presidency we have today, and go further to look at what he saw as the basis for governance:

But where, says some, is the King of America? I'll tell you.
Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind
like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear
to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly
set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth
placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon,
by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy,
that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments
the King is law, so in free countries the law OUGHT to be King;
and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should
afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony,
be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

Those words are one that became deeply embedded in America, and remain so to this day as a prime foundation of the Revolution and our own outlook on government and society. The law above all is that which holds us together as a Nation, even as we, as a People, see higher Divine inspiration above Nation, so that Divine Guide is not the guide of the Nation by mortal guise but is our personal guide to make good law for all People in the Nation. As Paine had pointed out earlier:

Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent.
Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied
to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.

The Colonies becoming States were already diverse in their populations, distributed amongst many sources and views on religion. That we had firm and steadfast belief in the Divine is not in question: that we each saw the Divine in a rigid way was in question. These States could ill-afford religious disputes here, and so the great Peace of Westphalia to allow each man his own view on the Divine was carried over. America has always had generosity in spirit towards all those who worship or not as they chose, but neither do we force religion nor irreligion on all. We pay homage to our roots in Divine Guidance, but then must get to the practical business of having a common Nation together with those acknowledged roots. We neither slather religion across those who do not wish it, nor do we remove it from those who gain offense to any homage to our forbearers. The Divine Inspiration for the Nation must lead to the hard work of making just law across society, and those that cannot understand that it was that Inspiration that made such things possible and pay no homage to it, break with the Nation as do those that seek to put in-place a singular view of religion for the Nation as a whole. Both are wrong and contrary to the Nation's history and discourse and corrode that common society that upholds the law, itself.

This Nation has suffered greatly over its time, but we also have a strength in society that is greater than the government itself. Even when things go horribly wrong, and many fall sick and die, this Nation had the resources without the Federal Government stepping in. Strange as it may seem, the Nation looked to itself for disasters, and saw government as the last and least competent to deal with same. The Spanish Flu outbreak did not cause a sudden need to have 'government mandated health insurance', and yet it killed hundreds of thousands in the US and nearly 25 million people globally in the first 25 weeks after its appearance. Those that tended to the sick were hospitals, church organizations, missions of various sorts, philanthropic organizations. Cities, counties and States responded faster than any 'National response' by the Federal Government could have done, as waiting to get those gears in motion would have killed more and caused more suffering than treating the ill immediately. America did, indeed, look to family, town, church, and charitable hospitals to seek aid and shelter from something that the Federal Government could do very little about either in prevention or direct aid.

After the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, the Federal Government did NOT step in to rebuild the city. State, city and local governments along with industrial and commercial concerns all played their part in removing debris, demolishing buildings, designing building codes and rebuilding the city, which would suffer again and again from that form of natural disaster. Nor did the Federal Government do much about the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 or, indeed, a host of disasters both natural and man made, that would befall the Nation time and again. Apparently when a town or city or county or even the Nation is beset by ill or illness, the first place America looks, quited pointedly, is NOT the incompetent Federal Government. But those lessons were forgotten in the one 'ill' that had no source in Government and no remedy by Government. That would be the Great Depression.

I have looked at that era in a previous work, and will bring out some of the salient points of it here, to look at the appropriateness or lack thereof, of government intervention in such things as the economy. The most startling thing to realize is that the actual decline of the Great Depression was during the period of late-1929 to mid-1933, a bit under 4 years. Only one program put in place by President Hoover, would outlast his Presidency, and that was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation that would see its major spending in that period and then taper off drastically from 1933-41 until it was re-purposed for World War II. All of the 'New Deal' programs beyond that would actually come in the recovery upturn of the economy, without exception. None of them would be the actual cause of the turning point in the economy which was due to deep business restructuring and the start of re-utilization of industrial capacity. That did not, however, stop the adding on of new things to the Federal Government that had never been under its purview before.

The Securities Act of 1933 did not pass until the actual inflection point in the economy itself, and the follow-on Securities and Exchange Commission would not come until the recovery had actually progressed upwards from that inflection point. A raft of other works and jobs programs would face high hurdles and many fell due to SCOTUS rulings. That 'start-stop' concept that came about happened, apparently, in spite of industrial recovery and may not have been, in actuality, adding much, if anything to it. While many do argue that the work to make infrastructure, via things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, also in 1933, would add jobs and security to the infrastructure of the Nations' power supply and rural electrification programs, the utility and need of the Federal Government to do that have not been properly addressed. President Franklin Roosevelt, indeed, had a view that the Federal Government *owned* such electrical generation as water regulation as part of its make-up:

"Never shall the federal government part with its sovereignty or with its control of its power resources while I'm president of the United States."

The Federal Government, apparently, owns all oversight on all power generation in the United States, as seen by President Roosevelt. This is something of a 'power grab' by the Federal Government in both the power generation and direct accountability aspects to it. And as the TVA crosses many State lines, the Federal Government should have a part in regulation, but its role to actually build, run and maintain it are highly dubious at best. The sovereignty of the power resources of the Nation is for the People to utilize as they will, not for the Federal Government to take to itself. Control of the inter-State commerce part of that is up to Congress to decide, but those things that are entirely intra-State are outside of those powers, until Congress put forward that purely in-State dealings in things that have a National market allow it to use its inter-State commerce powers to regulate it. That was the basis of the Raich decision on 6 DEC 2005. Thusly if President Roosevelt was right, any Congress can put forward that all private means of power generation... say buying solar panels for your home... will have an impact on the National power market and thus should be regulated. Do not be surprised if one's own power production needs a meter on it to pay Federal taxes. That should make some individuals uncomfortable: that any means to address environmental concerns require obedience to Federal taxation for something that is free, like sunlight, being converted to electricity. Apparently sunlight can be put through a meter, and it isn't the power companies that can do it, but the Federal government.

One program that was never intended to live past the Depression era was enacted in 1935, again well past the point where the economy was recovering. That was the provision to provide of old-age, survivors and disability insurance (OASDI) better known as: Social Security. Here, again, is something that the Republic of the United States had survived without since 1776, and even with the easing of the Depression and the re-employment of individuals, there was little actual need to remove from the hands of individuals their own ability to provide for their future needs. While there were, indeed, many older workers that were suddenly out of work, that was also true of their younger counter-parts. The idea of OASDI was to remove the older workers from the workforce by a forced retirement system to get Social Security benefits. Unfortunately the first pay-out from the system was on 31 JAN 1940 not only well after the Great Depression had passed but also after the 1937 Recession which had marked the end of the Great Depression. Apparently older workers were *still* expected to undergo forced retirement and end their contribution to the workforce once the Nation was expanding economically before WWII. The post 1937 Recession recovery was robust and growing in its need for workers, with industrial expansion on the rise by the industrial sector.

The two premises of the OASDI system are deeply and highly flawed: 1) that the number of jobs in the marketplace is fixed, and, 2) that life expectancy is fixed. In the Depression these two things were forgotten, with the sudden decline of so many individuals having so little income to sustain themselves. Post-Depression, however, both of these proved false almost immediately with economic expansion going beyond pre-1929 levels of employment and life expectancy continuing to rise even during the Great Depression. Both of these had upward trends since 1900, with only the Influenza Epidemic having a number of years of decreased life expectancy. With those two concepts of Social Security sitting fixed, the economic problems that each would cause, cumulatively, now force this Nation to question the wisdom of having the concept of a 'retirement age'. Life expectancy increases, alone, mean a nearly 14% drop in the number of productive years one can expect to be working as part of one's life. Previous to OASDI, an average individual could expect to spend 45% of their lives in the workforce, and that does not include any time spent as children or teens working. Today the average individual can expect 31% of their life to be in the active workforce. That delta is paid for by transfer payments to the young, working class of individuals to the older workers who have retired. As life expectancy increases, although well below the absolute known limits for human old age, more of that time is spent not working and is subsidized by younger workers.

Strange as it may seem to say, most of the time America has existed was spent with people working to effective old age, and only retiring when they either could not work or their own plans for retiring had come about. The removal of letting an individual decide this and letting the Federal Government do so has been an increased dependence of older individuals on Federal payments and removing self-reliance from individuals to plan for their own old-age needs. Even worse is that the Social Security 'Trust Fund' is a revolving door account, in which no money is put into actual 'Trust' via securities and all payments depend on taxation upon workers. That is not 'Insurance' it is a direct income redistribution from struggling younger workers to older individuals who should be both older and wiser in their handling of their lives. Beyond that, the lack of investment due to the 'Trust' taxation means that income that would normally have either been spent or invested by younger individuals for such things as homes or old age security goes to those who are no longer working and should have prepared for this known eventuality in life: it is called 'getting old' and it is across-the-board and a well known phenomena.

It may have had some basis earlier on, when actually being able to invest widely was difficult for low income individuals, but that era passed with the entry of automated mutual funds for investing, and fractional stock ownership in such funds. While a relatively poor worker of the 1930's did not have such opportunities, that is not true of an entry level worker in 2007 and hasn't been true for a couple of decades. Today's workers no longer expect to *get* any payment via Social Security and plan accordingly with their remaining funds. This 'entitlement' was invented for a particular era and need and now has almost become a 'right' and the Federal Government had very little place or standing to do this when it did. In so doing, however, a real problem happened in the 1940's when numbers of individuals were ready to retire and they were needed for wartime production! As no good deed goes unpunished, this program was removing workers from the active workforce just as they were needed to replace younger men going off to war. To encourage those that would normally retire, a number of 'non-wage benefits' were put in place by businesses and one of them was given a tax write-off by the Federal Government: health insurance.

As John Stossel goes over in Bad Medecine (21 SEP 2007, NY Sun), insurance is the worst way to pay for medical care invented. Prior to the war-time subsidies via tax-code, Americans looked after their own health care directly. Most individuals went uninsured and some purchased forms of what today would be considered 'catastrophic care' plans, although most would fall under the 'accidental death and dismemberment' concept of insurance. Health insurance, itself, while not unknown was not widely used and the need for individuals to understand their own health limited the utilization of health practitioners and medications to chronic diseases or immediate ailments. It should be noted that even the Influenza Epidemic did not cause a rush to 'health insurance', even with the death toll that came with it. By requiring individuals to pay their own way, health care costs were minimized and, yes, often at the expense of long-term health. This did not prevent overall life expectancy to continue to rise even without 'health insurance'. Today the cost of overhead to the 'health insurance' system is entirely due to the 'insurance' part and not the health part. Actual costs to the individual for actual doctor treatment time and not paying for paperwork has changed very little in America. What has changed is the need to keep and manage health insurance records, fill out forms, undergo third party governance of what is and is not good for one's health and, generally, time and effort spent in trying to keep track of all of this. That overhead has now changed the system itself to a document management system that, as a minor function, also delivers a little health care.

When that tax subsidy did not end 'health insurance', previously a little used benefit for high wage workers, was retained and enrollment in it would swell. This causes a systemic distortion in two areas: 1) perceived cost when little payment is directly made for care causing spiraling cost as overhead increases out of proportion with delivered care due to fraud and over-utilization, and, 2) loss of control over one's own health. Both of these are hard to deal with, as 'let the insurance company handle it' has become the catch phrase, but one that indicates little understanding of the cost in 'letting the insurance company handle it'. Additionally the need to practice 'defensive medicine' and order many more tests than are needed to diagnose a condition, so that any malpractice suits will have little chance of standing adds burden into the system. Fraud not only by physicians but by patients that over utilize the system or who seek to cause an error to their benefit via lawsuit add into the expense of health care via 'insurance'. And as the number of procedures increase, the paperwork for each multiplies what has to be tracked by doctors and the insurance companies. To control over-prescribing of medications or fraudulent prescription of same, insurance companies now wield extra-ordinary power over an individual's health and will put down draconian limits on some medications that may be more expensive (due to their paperwork overhead, especially for 'controlled' substances). The result is that while many older medications may get under utilized, in preference to 'newer' and more expensive ones, individuals who need the benefits of the newer medications may not have access to them as insurance companies mandate more paperwork for justification for those newer medications.

Politicians who try to exploit these 'entitlements' or to try and create new 'entitlements' further distort the health care system towards their own ends, while not offering any improvement in cost, overhead or actual care delivery. By making such a system 'universal' and mandatory, the need for 'control' over the use and utilization increases, the overhead increases disproportionately to the amount of utilization and those that see no benefit in it (mostly the young and healthy) feel as if money is being extorted from them to no good nor useful end. We forget that for 'insurance' to be useful, the majority never get a real pay-out on it at any one time. Life insurance has a single-time payout and is a bet that you will die and the insurance company thinks otherwise. Similarly health insurance is your bet you will be sick in a given time period and the insurance company expecting otherwise. You purchase insurance to cover need and eventualities based on individual perception of those. Mandating same indicates that lack of trust in individuals to judge their own need and provide for it. That is government removing personal responsibility from the individual and putting it in the hands of a bureaucrat.

It is very strange to see such things, and yet, when reading Paine there is an eerie foreboding that one can get out of passages he wrote to describe the state of the Colonies just as the Revolution had begun:

The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is
capable of reflexion. Without law, without government, without any
other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy.
Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which,
is nevertheless subject to change, and which, every secret enemy is
endeavouring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, Legislation
without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name;
and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independance contending
for dependance. The instance is without a precedent; the case never
existed before; and who can tell what may be the event? The property
of no man is secure in the present unbraced system of things. The mind
of the multitude is left at random, and seeing no fixed object before
them, they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal;
there is no such thing as treason; wherefore, every one thinks himself
at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not have assembled
offensively, had they known that their lives, by that act, were forfeited
to the laws of the state. A line of distinction should be drawn, between,
English soldiers taken in battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms.
The first are prisoners, but the latter traitors.
The one forfeits his liberty, the other his head.

Legislation without law, a Constitution without a name, independence contending for dependence, the property of no man secured, nothing criminal and no such thing as treason... that is, unfortunately, an apt description of much of America today.

We have seen this before in America.

Sphere: Related Content

What don't you know, and why won't they tell you?

The question that nobody cares about!

But for some general interest stuff, there has been the Israeli work in Syria, most likely at Deyr Zzor (your spelling may vary!). There is exactly *one* agricultural facility attached to a university there and someone was very helpful a long time back to put a placemark on it in Google Earth. The reason I never bothered to cover it? Blobography. You can see a clearing with buildings and thats about it, all fuzzy and pretty useless for analysis. Both FAS and GlobalSecurity have been hazy on it, although I expect the latter to catch up a bit in the next few days. But no pretty imagery available for overlay... well, there wasn't last year when I did my Syria run-through. Those links are on my current version of the sidebar, so one can have fun with all the OTHER Syrian WMD and long-range missile sites...

Hsu stepping! Mr. Hsu has been very busy, hasn't he? Evading the law, donating millions of dollars and even with those he did swindle, I'm coming up a few tens of millions short on his cash supply end. I have a notebook of Hsu, Chatwal, Jinnah, and Hsu's connections to Wo Hop To Triad, and all sorts of other fun things. Others are chasing the money angle which is damned important, as Mr. Hsu & Co. have spread their money around across the Nation. But still, where has Mr. Hsu been, where *does* he get the rest of his cash, and who else is he in contact with? Very strange that he only enters the scene as a 'small businessman' in San Francisco's Chinatown with, as the Shrimp Boy remembers, a 'latex glove' business. Uh-huh. 'Latex gloves' and Chinese Triads go so well together! For all of his being 'in the garment industry' and even getting interviewed a number of times as an 'expert' he really hasn't sold much in the way of garments as far as I can see. Perhaps the 'latex gloves' are keeping his fingerprints in check.

Color me: skeptical.

But that Triad connection is interesting, what with them trying to get control of all the North American Triads and such! That has been not-so-fun to try and trace down as the Asian community is not one to lay out the 'who does what' sort of deal as organized crime is part of 'doing business in the community'. Still the Wo Hop To as a division of the Hong Kong based Wo Shing Wo Triad is interesting and the latter has been busy across SE Asia and Australia. Not only heroin, opium, pharma, but also such fun things as human trafficking, sex shop slavery and your everyday black market goods dealing in asian knock-offs, really does point out a problem there. Not that any of the 'open borders' crowd will want to do anything about it. Bring in the organized crime groups from all over!

Now, digging up into organized crime, Hsu and a few other things, I did run across one interesting question:

What is the relationship between Hillary Clinton and a partially completed Soviet Aircraft Carrier?
That is one damned sort of question, isn't it? I mean it seems absolutely non-sensical... yet it does have an answer to it: Chen Kai-kit. And who, praytell, is Chen Kai-kit? Ah, Bertil Lintner can answer that in his paper on Crime, Business and Politics in Asia:

Chen Kai-kit, the Triad-connected legislator who had dined with the Clintons, published an autobiography in which boasted that many international figures had paid him tribute, including the American president, who presented him with “a signed photograph,” which he hung on the wall of the office of his “import-export” company, called Ang Du, in the Bank of China building in downtown Macau.40 Such displays may have benefitted Chen in his attempts to build up a network of business associates in the territory, and perhaps also in China. But there was one man on whom it was not necessary to make any special impression: Wong Sing-wa. They were already long-time friends and close partners in the management of a VIP room in Macau’s Mandarin Hotel. Wong, the head of the Talented Dragon investment firm, was in 1990 appointed Pyongyang’s honourary consul in Macau, and the travel arm of his company was authorised to issue visas for North Korea.41 As such, he worked closely with Zokwang Trading, North Korea’s main commercial arm in Macau. In early 1998, a Lisbon-based weekly newspaper, the Independent, protested Wong’s presence in a delegation from Macau that was being received by the Portuguese president. The paper cited a Macau official as saying that Wong had “no criminal record, but we have registered information that links him to organised crime and gambling in Macau.”42

Catch all that? Chinese businessman with Triad connections, working in Macau and having a friend who was the front-man for North Korea, who was also involved in organized crime? Ok, skipping ahead of other underworld contacts we get to this:

Chen Kai-kit also resurfaced soon after Donorgate. He landed in the middle of another controversy in early 1998, when it was reported that Ukraine would sell an unfinished aircraft carrier to a “leisure company” in the then still Portuguese territory. Ukraine had inherited the aircraft carrier after the break-up of the Soviet Union, and badly needed hard currency. The registered objective of the Macau company, Agencía Turistica e Diversões Chong Lot Limitada — which in English means “Tourism and Amusement Agency” — was to run “activities in the hotel and similar areas, tourism and amusement.”45

The 306-metre long ship was too big to pass through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles Straits, and for months the Turkish authorities forced it to remain at anchor in the Black Sea. In September 2001, however, the Turks finally allowed the aircraft carrier to be towed to China, where it remains. Although Cheng Zhen Shu, chairman of “Agencía Turistica e Diversões Chong Lot Limitada”, denied having bought it for the PLA to enable Chinese engineers to study the secrets of aircraft carrier design, that seemed to be exactly the case. And the Hong Kong media reported that the real boss of the so-called “tourism company” was Chen Kai-kit.47 In other words, a man deeply implicated in an American president’s fund-raising campaign might also have been simultaneously acting on behalf on the Chinese military. One can only wonder how Clinton’s voters might have reacted if the disclosures had come during the actual re-election campaign.

But then, in August 1999, Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption issued a warrant for the arrest of Chen and his wife Elsie Chan. They and six others, including Chen’s brother and the accountant of his main company, Ang-Du International, were accused of helping to siphon off millions of dollars from Guangnan Holdings, an insolvent mainland food conglomerate, and of a plan to defraud the Standard Chartered Bank of London of US$13.9 million in bogus loans.48 Eight accomplices were arrested, but Chen could not be apprehended as he was ‘receiving treatment for a heart condition in a military hospital on the mainland’.49

That's right, to be turned into some sort of floating casino/amusement theme park sort of deal! Really, who would pay $20 million for an old, incomplete, Soviet aircraft carrier? It sits, to this day, rusting in a port in China and will probably be scrapped as it is pretty much useless. Costs too much to renovate or retrofit and far cheaper to build a new one than retrofit the thing. You just have to love these folks the Clintons hob-nob around with! Of course Chen Kai-kit is also associated with the People's Liberation Army of Red China. Can't swing a dead cat around the Donorgate/Chinagate scandal without hitting the PLA.

And the incomplete CV Varyag even has its own web page! Who would have thought that a rusting hulk would have its own *fans*?

Speaking of Chinagate, beyond Norman Hsu and Hillary Clinton, what other Presidential Candidate had their name up in lights with that investigation?

Care to guess?

No?

Here is a lovely bit from an article I ran across looking into Chinagate, from the Find Articles cache, Insight on the News, 01 DEC 1997, Why do so many questions yield so few answers? - Sen. Fred Thompson's investigation of '96 campaign funds - Fair Comment - Column, by Larry Klayman:

Fred Thompson, former movie actor and now chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, has taken a dive. Touted just one year ago as the next Ronald Reagan and charged by Senate Majority Leader Dent Lott to investigate and root out corruption in the White House and Democratic National Committee campaign-finance scandals, Thompson himself has succumbed to the insidious forces which have rendered the Clinton administration and most of official Washington ethically bankrupt.

In shutting down his hearings before calling key witnesses who could expose Democrat high crimes and misdemeanors, Thompson has hit the canvass much like Sonny Liston in his first fight against the young Cassius Clay. While Bill Clinton is no modern-day Muhammad Ali (notwithstanding similarities in their Vietnam War draft records) Thompson's well-known presidential ambitions may hold parallels with Liston's meteoric fall to the mat.

Say, just what *was* up with that, anyways? Really, if the man wants to be President, shouldn't he have taken a pretty large interest in Chinagate? Reading a bit further on we get to see some of the problems Sen. Thompson had with investigating President Clinton:

Thompson was appointed to lead the Senate's investigation, reportedly because of his experience as a Watergate prosecutor and his claimed public relations skills. However, from day one of the hearings, it became apparent that he and his colleagues were not up to the task. Making bold predictions that his committee would expose a plot by the Chinese to influence American elections in 1996, he initially and inexplicably called relatively low-level witnesses, such as DNC Finance Director Richard Sullivan, who Republicans initially praised for their integrity and "cooperation," only later to be shocked that they would lie and "forget" key facts. Given the sensitivity of Republicans to their "reputation for meanness," there was little if any challenge to this lack of honesty. Nor were most of Thompson's colleagues generally prepared thoroughly to question the witnesses -- instead relying on bluster and grandstanding, rather than serious interrogation, to make their point.

This was no wonder, since many of the Republican members of Thompson's committee had fund-raising peccadilloes of their own. One, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, was implicated in the scandal. The Washington Times reported on Oct. 3 that Specter may have helped get public financing for the recent Teamsters election (since thrown out for fraud) in apparent exchange for campaign contributions from union sources. (In a letter to the Times, Specter denied the implication of the Times story and notes that he voted against funding of the next Teamster election.) It thus became painfully obvious that Republicans lacked the will and courage to expose the full extent of the biggest Clinton scandal, as to do so could bring about "mutually assured destruction." As reported by columnist Arianna Huffington, Triad, a right-wing group that Thompson "graciously" had allowed to be dragged into the investigation, threatened to expose Republican fund-raising abuses if the committee proceeded against it.

Look, I have no problem with the Republican '11th Commandment', but that does NOT mean letting those on your own side go violate the election laws EITHER. Whatever *did* happen to 'Law and Order' Republicans? Beyond acting on a television program, that is...

From Iran/Contra, BCCI, Chinagate, and a few others like the BNL and S&L scandals, we now get the Hsunannegans and a pretty wide brush painted across most of the Presidential field. Don't any of them have the willpower to stand up against vested interests and big money? Just take a look at the Hsu side of the Force for a second, and we get his contributions to: Sen. John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and, apparently, half the Democratic candidates for office over the last four years or so. His previous lawyer, Lawrence Barcella, was employed by BCCI then figured out a way to get a job investigating his activities in BCCI for the government. Great work if you can get it, this investigating yourself deal!

And let us not forget that BCCI and BNL also got in with the Keating Five and Sen. John McCain. And BCCI would also pick up billionaire Jackson Stephens and *his* employment of John Huang who was also in the Chinagate scandal, along with associations with the Riady family, also in the scandal. But heaven forbid if Sen. Thompson were to investigate *that*! Might start leading back to BCCI and the Reagan Administration's use of BNL to finance Saddam Hussein, and the Ollie North/Richard Secord/Albert Hakim work in Iran/Contra which would depend upon BCCI to move money around to, yes, Monzer al-Kassar for his work in supplying and shipping arms for one of the shipments. Of which Jackson Stephens also knew North/Secord/Hakim and helped them with the Iran/Contra affair.

So, which candidate for President *isn't* taking money from: crooks, underworld figures, Foreign Nations or terrorists?

And if the answer is, as I suspect, *none* of them being able to say that, then can they at least come clean on *which* convicts, gangsters, mafioso, underworld figures, terrorists and Foreign Nations ARE backing them?

Hey, we gots a right to know how dirty you are before we elect you for President!

Because no matter the nice words they say to please *you*, they are all looking to be on the take to the monied interests looking to sway: contracts, trade deals, crime enforcement or to just get their hands on US technology or weapons.

Or they can't even be bothered to investigate same because it just might *hurt* someone in their ever so precious political party.

The Two Party System now looks to be a 'rigged game' and the PROBLEM, not a strength of America.

But that's just me... seeing folks highly connected to such things and *not* doing a damned thing about it. And that is, exactly, what a President has to do: Chief Law Enforcement Officer? Head of the Armies and Navies? Head of the Nation? Chief of State? Head of Government?

Ask them no questions and they will tell you no lies.

Or, as given to us by the Village by Patrick McGoohan in the The Prisoner series:

Questions are a burden to others; answers are a prison for oneself.
Perhaps it is time to feel a bit burdened. Unless you already know the answers...

Sphere: Related Content

Straying into the Field

I am sure you are all familiar with Sally Field's Emmy acceptance which raised a bit of a hue & cry because of the bit of censorship involved:

"Let's face it, if mothers ruled the world, there would be no God damn wars in the first place."

Getting that from the Baltimore Sun of 18 SEP 2007. Sally Field appears to believe that women like Lucrezia Borgia, by mere fact of being a mother, would insulate themselves from rather nasty things in the way of statecraft. Yes if all nice, sweet moms were running things, why cars would never go faster than 20 mph, you would have government mandate to keep a clean pair of underwear with you at all times, and you would get stiff fines for not finishing off your vegetables at dinner *first*. Luckily the good Dr. Helen has taken on this sort of thing so I don't have to!

Instead, I would like to point out something that came to my attention a bit ago while reading Michael Totten. During one of his posts from his experiences in Iraq, he did point out that mothers, in particular, have a special role in Iraqi society. And this is something that we here, in the US, have overlooked completely, which could help immensely in bringing some peace to Iraq and helping folks settle down a bit. The post is that of 27 AUG 2007 and the following is the lead-in to it:

MUSHADAH, IRAQ – “Al Qaeda terrifies locals,” said Major Mike Garcia from Canyon, Texas, before he put me in a convoy of Humvees with 18 American Military Police on their way to the small town of Mushadah just north of Baghdad. “The only people Iraqis may be more afraid of is their mothers. When we arrest or detain people and threaten to call up their mom, they completely freak out. Please, no, don’t tell my mother they say. Women are quiet outside the house, but they severely smack down their bad kids inside the house. When your Iraqi mother tells you to knock something off, you knock it off.”

The American military has slowly figured out how to leverage Iraq’s culture to its advantage, but it only works to an extent. Locating, killing, capturing, and interrogating terrorists and insurgents is the easy part. The hard part is training Iraqis to do it themselves.

Now this may just be a bit centralized to Mushadah, but, from what I've read from Bill Ardolino, Michael Yon, Bill Roggio and others... well... this does appear to be a bit more wide-spread if less often talked about. I mean, how can you be a brave jihadi if you are worried your mother will find out? Hard to do that without the other jihadis ragging on you incessently. And now that some restoration of order is coming about, maybe it is time to change the approach with the Iraqi Police, just a bit.

I am sure we are all familiar with the 'Desk Sergeant' from multiple police/crime dramas: the poor man sitting at the Front Desk to book people and sort things out. Usually an older veteran of the force, doing the hard job of making sure things are kept orderly, that procedure is followed, that you eat all your vegetables *first*.... that would have its only, practical level of terror upon those suspected of crimes, wouldn't it? Instead of a man doing that job, recruit women for it. And not young women, either. In point of fact, you would want mothers with *sons* in that sort of position. Actually, outside of the violent perps, the job, itself, is pretty much administrative and functionary, with only the need to direct traffic, call in support when needed and otherwise browbeat individuals as they enter the station.

Sounds like the *perfect* job for an Iraqi mom!

Not one of those Western moms... no... none of that 'just talk it out' sort of thing. Iraqi moms seem to have a better handle on this concept of 'civilizing the boys' than our culture has at this point in time. And no matter how old you are, you would remember you mother, and not want to get one sitting in initial judgement of you upset. You never know *what* she might do... like talk to YOUR MOTHER about you lacks as a son. It wouldn't get the uncouth men to behave, but it just might get those with a conscience and respect for their mothers to really think about what they are doing.

And act civilized like your mother told you to do.

Sphere: Related Content

From Blackwater to blue water

Ralph Peters has put out an interesting opinion piece of 20 SEP 2007, Lose the Mercenaries, in the NY Post on the Blackwater incident and the Iraqi removing their ability to be used in Iraq. An incident led to a shoot-out and that led to a sectarian hold-over in the Interior Ministry in Iraq to put the kibosh on the use of Blackwater in Iraq. This mostly hits the US State Dept, but also some other private contracting groups as well, that need outside security help to operate. I will let Mr. Peters pick up the basics and trace it back a bit:

Last weekend, a convoy ferrying nervous-Nellie diplomats (do we have any other kind?) panicked. The guards, employed by Blackwater, shot the hell out of civilians going about their business in downtown Baghdad.

Nine dead, two dozen wounded.

Given what we know now, it looks like a war crime.

It's bewildering that our anti-war crowd, while anxious to discredit our troops with lies, ignores the very real depredations of trigger-happy contractors - who don't answer to military discipline.

How did we get to this?

Both Democrats and Republicans under-funded our ground forces for so long that, faced with the demands of counterinsurgency warfare and the occupation of a major country, we just didn't have the numbers or the resources to do the job with soldiers and Marines.

So the Bush administration "outsourced" the work to thugs, vultures and cons. We wasted billions. And virtually every major contract to rebuild Iraq has failed to meet its goals.

And corporations that fail face no penalty. They just get new contracts.

One of the interesting things is that he does mis-state that it was during the Bush Administration when this started. This is done under the auspices of the A-76 system, to find those jobs that do not need to be done by government employees in DoD and that can be outsourced. I have actually seen this system at work, and it is very interesting to see individuals who have worked for 15 or 20 or 25 years at a job in DoD be asked if it can be done by an outside contractor. And such lovely folks that go around with this study, which quickly becomes a 'batten down the hatches, storm ahead' sort of deal. Now, this is not to say that there aren't some jobs that can, in truth, be done and done well by private firms! The long list of things that can be done are: janitorial work, food service, infrastructure maintenance, grounds maintenance.

Really, for such things inside the US, why have a military or civilian employee doing them?

The edge started to come, however, when other things started to go, as well: facility security, personnel security, administrative jobs, and, in my Agency when I worked at it, actual production and technical jobs that were required to meet MILSPEC for things like targeting, Bomb/Battle Damage Assessment, and even edging into R&D. It was outsourcing galore in the 1990's and the worry then, by many on the 'inside' is that the cost of that non-fixed workforce would come back to bite the US hard during a crisis. When losing skilled personnel with a decade or more of analytical experience to contractors and then having a contractor *lose* on the contract who has those individuals, you are then faced with getting green and raw personnel who know very little about the actual jobs in question.

On the larger scale, this entire concept was supposed to improve the 'tooth to tail' ratio in the armed forces. This ratio is the number of combat soldiers (the tooth end) to the number of support soldiers necessary to keep that individual supplied (the tail end). Thus a ratio of 1 : 7 indicates that for each combat soldier, there is an average requirement to have 7 support staff for things like supply, tracking, personnel, etc.

If you want to get meals in the field, that reqires folks to deliver them to the field to be eaten - that is 'tail'.

It reqires folks to move those supplies from central depots to field depots - that is 'tail'.

If it requires long distance haulage from another continent to get to the central depot - that is 'tail'.

There are folks that do the mass requisition of supplies - that is 'tail'.

There are folks that run the supply contracts - that is 'tail'.

Over time the administrative overhead to keep troops in the field has the 'tail' outnumbering the 'tooth'. That number of 1 : 7 was from the mid-point of the Vietnam war where a conscript army, flush with personnel, could afford lots of administrative overhead. Being sent to Vietnam was not necessarily a combat assignment and the number of in-theater troops just keeping things running was very, very high. Much higher than the all-volunteer forces really could endure by the 1990's. Thus the shift from in-house support to contract support, which was given a green light by both political parties.

Even worse is that the State Dept has its own 'issues' with US military security, this from Mr. Peters:

State demands authority, but flees from responsibility. Unable for years to cajole employees to volunteer for Iraq, Foggy Bottom finally made it a career near-necessity to do a few months in the Green Zone. The result? In the less-than-a-day I spent in that fantasyland last month, I heard complaints about junior State types pushing ahead of soldiers in the lunch line. (State employees are more important than folks in uniform, you see.)

Meanwhile, State is building the greatest white elephant in our diplomatic history - the largest U.S. embassy in the world - in Baghdad. Set aside the alleged corruption and incompetence riddling the project: Building a Saddam-style monument isn't just lunatic vanity, it's breathtakingly stupid - it proclaims that we intend to stay and rule.

Couldn't our diplomats try a little humility? Just once?

Yes, the State Dept. wanted its very own military force to protect it. And one held unaccountable, at that. But that is what happens when you 'streamline' the military to get a better tooth to tail ratio: at some point you stop slicing tail and start taking out vital organs. Now Mr. Peters characterizes Blackwater as 'mercenaries', and offers this as a list of recommendations:

Here's the bottom line on all of this:

* If our diplomats can't go to the latrine without an armed posse, State needs to ask Congress for funding to expand its in-house security capabilities. No more thugs.

* We should respect the Iraqi government's decision to give Blackwater the boot. Other security companies might just pay attention and explain to their employees that Iraqi civilians aren't hunting trophies.

* We need to stop the blather about "interagency responsibility-sharing" in occupations. The other guys don't show up, so our troops end up holding the bag. Our military doesn't want to do occupations, but it's the only institution with the essential knowledge, discipline and infrastructure. Get over it, general: Embrace the mission.

* We need a clear, single chain of command during military operations abroad. And the big-hat, no-cattle State Department can only have an advisory role.

Our troops have done splendidly, their leaders are doing better and better - and our diplomats still flounder. If we expect Iraqis to clean up their act, let's clean up our own.

I actually agree with some of the outlook, but the points, themselves, need a bit of refining. And for that we need some clarity of how to utilize private armed forces in the service of the US Government. Yes, there is an actual thing that can be done to not only legitimize these forces but, as Mr. Peters wants and I concur, bring them under a 'single chain of command'. What is that thing? Time to look at our favorite, the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, in part:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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;

Notice the 'Letters' language and the surrounding language? Not only were Privateers utilized as part of the legitimate armed forces of the Union, but they had their own purview for operation and yet still were accountable to military justice for their work. The actual Letters were normally against ships of an enemy, but could also manifest in strikes against shipping, depots, harbors, facilities, and so forth. Thus we have some parts of the US Code that pertain to this, mainly in Section 10, covering the armed forces. One of the more basic is 10 USC 351:

Sec. 351. During war or threat to national security

(a) The President, through any agency of the Department of Defense designated by him, may arm, have armed, or allow to be armed, any watercraft or aircraft that is capable of being used as a means of transportation on, over, or under water, and is documented, registered, or licensed under the laws of the United States.

(b) This section applies during a war and at any other time when the President determines that the security of the United States is threatened by the application, or the imminent danger of application, of physical force by any foreign government or agency against the United States, its citizens, the property of its citizens, or their commercial interests.

(c) Section 16 of the Act of March 4, 1909 (22 U.S.C. 463) does not apply to vessels armed under this section.

Note the 'armed or allowed to be armed' part? That is the ability of the Executive - to protect the Nation, and, in this case, in which an 'agency against the United States' is threating its citizens, and also its government officials. This is any sort of vehicle for air or water transport that can be armed at need.

Ok, just as one of those freebie DLSF things... you could, under this, with the authority of the President have a different sort of craft utilized by Blackwater for their own personnel movement and transport and absolutely, positively, without pause, fit under this! Yes, my Riverine Fighting Force proposal would fit this as those sorts of vessels travel not only on the water but over it as well. Have the President designate armed hovercraft by Blackwater for this, and suddenly, you have a force protection capability that would be fully authorized by the President and right under the chain of command, while still being a contract force. So accountability via the UCMJ would be there as well as civil penalties for any breach of contract sort of deal. That does mean having to develop and build armed hovercraft... but I can think of a few things such vehicles can do and would be immune to that normal ground vehicles are not subject to.

Ok, that ends *that* digression.

What is needed, apparently, is an Act of Congress to actually start bringing these 'mercenaries' into the UCMJ as seen by Douglas Kmiec in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 17 APR 2002:

Some have disputed this account of the declare war clause, arguing in support of a congressional pre-condition by reference to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 which gives Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, . . .” This somewhat arcane aspect of constitutional text, however, cannot bear the weight of the claim. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one’s citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President’s responsibilities under the Constitution.

Indeed, Congress can and *should* have oversight of these private groups brought in to protect the Nation. This is not just security, but combat, which goes beyond chasing down crooks but actually having to fight pitched battles in combat zones. Typically Congress may designate those getting Letters of Marque, and it is up to the President to utilize and deploy such. That is the Commander-in-Chief power so as to not let Congress fight its own private little wars. Such Letters could be specifically drafted for such individuals or companies, laying out obligations, duties and restrictions upon them. That is the 'blue water' part of this, but do note it was not unusual for Privateers to have their own ground forces like Captain Morgan, and utilize them in their Privateering.


While that lineage of forces is nearly forgotten, hearkening back to an earlier era of warfare, it is fully supported by the US Constitution. Enabling organizations to operate as Privateers in defense of the State Dept. is not only fully allowable, but Constitutional. That would then give added resources to the President to contract out such things as physical security while still having military oversight and justice available for said contractors.

I am in full agreement with Mr. Peters that unaccountable forces must be purged from the battlespace. Congress needs to realize that in authorizing the movement of so much in the way of infrastructure to civilian contracting, it has seriously put at peril civilian staff overseas. That has the older remedy of Privateers to 'pick up the slack' for pay, and allows them to additionally point out and confiscate anything the President needs from those enemies that refuse to declare themselves as Nations. Of course that just might make the State Dept. a bit edgy... but no one said being a diplomat was *easy* now, did they?

Unaccountable forces, beholden to neither military nor civil law are not to be used nor tolerated in world affairs. If Iraq has no means to hold them accountable outside of ending their welcome, then it is up to the US Congress to hear from the State Dept. on *why* they need such forces. Congress can then decide to tell the State Dept. to use regular forces, or the Congress can hand out Letters of Marque for operation to such organizations seeking contract work as a military organization and willing to be held accountable to US military justice via the UCMJ. The State Dept. falls under the Executive for operations and the use of unaccountable forces is linked not only to the President, for authorization of same, but to Congress for having laws in place to allow simple security forces to be used in combat roles. Both are at fault and the US should not be using such forces outside of the Constitutional bounds of the Nation.

If they want the contracts, let them apply for Letters so the President can legitimately use them in those roles.

Just realize that for what you get used for can change based on the President's need. It is a very dicey game, this standing up separately for your Nation under arms. One cannot be a law unto themselves in doing that, lest you be looked at as a mercenary predator accountable to no government. That is not to disparage Blackwater, but to point out the problem and how to address it. It is not in the hands of Blackwater, but that of the Nation as a whole.

Sphere: Related Content

Conspiracy, so simple a Leftist can do it

My thanks to Serendip for giving a pointer to an article by Mohammad Alireza at Iranian on 18 SEP 2007: What will you do after America destroys Iran?

One thing that seems to be pretty well endemic across the Middle East is conspiracy-mania! The joys of everything being a part of some larger conspiracy, if only you could figure it out and if you CAN'T then you make one up. In the more authoritarian and dictatorial societies this is an outgrowth of trying to explain the whimsies of such regimes and give them any context whatsoever. Unfortunately that means that something simple, such as someone in the power structure not particularly liking you for some reason and having you, as an individual or family, harassed gets pinned on various things. If your cousin does something vaguely wrong and illegal, but that most folks get away with and *he* gets thrown in jail, then *you* will pin that on... well, lets see, the list usually starts: the United States, Israel, Europe, the oil companies, a minor deific being, economics, a religious conspiracy out to get you, a power conspiracy out to get you, or, indeed, any conspiracy at all.

And it if is actually just some minor functionary harassing you anonymously via the power structure of the State?

Ah, yes, if you try to say *that* and actually hold anyone in power accountable, then you will be visiting your brother in jail or possibly just find out where all those 'disappeared' people go to. Must be UFOs! It's a conspiracy!

Now, when you are a Leftist and have roots in the Middle East, then the absolute conspiracy realm starts to knock out all the 'lesser conspiracies' as they just aren't powerful enough to get you. That means that all local activities by local powers-that-be are put aside because you really don't want to talk about them and if you blame them... well, see above. Instead you can start blaming the Global Conspiracies of various sorts because they are so awesome in power that NO ONE can resist them!

With that in mind lets start in on Mr. Alireza's op-ed:

TEHRAN, Iran
-- What’s the connection between; the theft of the 2000 Gore-Bush
election, Cheney’s secret meeting with oil executives, September 11th
2001, the invasion of Iraq, and plans for destroying Iran’s military
defenses and setting it’s economy back 50 years?

The connection is Peak Oil.

Yes, there you have the latest in grand conspiracy theories by the Western Left showing up to bolster the conspiracy theories of the paranoid Middle East. Hey! Who said the Left couldn't learn anything? They certainly picked up conspiracy-mania from the Middle East damned quickly. This is the 'Neo-Con hijack Amerika truth behind 9/11 no blood for oil' conspiracy at work!

This is what happens when you *think* that America is a 'one-man, one-vote' democracy while, instead, we have a representative democracy of equal parts in the House via population and equal State representation in the Senate. In the year 2000 the election did NOT go to the person with the most votes, but went to the person who was able to craft a majority of the district based representation system in the Electoral College to win. Of course, if you think America has one sort of system while it actually has another, you will see a conspiracy at work. In the end this great and grand conspiracy came down to 500 or so voters in Florida, as the rest of Nation had left neither candidate with an outright majority as went Florida so went the Nation. And Florida itself was highly divided in its vote. So instead of actually knowing a bit about the Electoral College, representative democracy and the district based distribution in the Electoral College we get, instead: A Conspiracy!

A conspiracy of the willfully uneducated, apparently.

Good going to the Western Left! The US hadn't even suffered 9/11, was still undergoing the moribund foreign policy of Bill Clinton that did nothing about terrorism or holding any Nation accountable to anything, and he did not even try to enforce the laws of the land to protect the Nation. From that and the lax attitude of the 1990's and the strange notion that 'history had ended', why no one could see a dime's worth of difference between a lack-luster Vice President and a Texas Governor who's main claim to fame is his family name. And you need a conspiracy for this?

A conspiracy of stupidity, possibly...

Then there is Cheney's 'secret meetings with oil executives'! Tell you what, can we swap that for President Clinton's 'secret meetings with Charlie Trie' and the movement of defense technology to Red China? Because, on the scale of pure nastiness, oil men looking to make money selling oil and individuals looking to undermine the global balance of power directly by giving Red China a leg-up on technology to thwart the US are not even roughly equivalent as the way the world turns. It is about on level with Hillary Clinton's 'secret meetings on health care', which looks to impoverish this Nation, then and now, faster than anything the poor oil men can do. Heck, they just want us to drive more while these others are looking to harm the US directly via empowering a Nation not-so-friendly to the US and, with Ms. Clinton, to do the Soviet equivalent of economics to US health care to make everyone equally sick and poor.

'Secret meetings' are the stuff of conspiracies as they are 'secret'. If VP Cheney was so smart, then how come no real energy legislation has been passed to wipe out all these other forms of fuel and get rid of the percent or so of US energy that comes from 'renewables'? Oh, wait, the stuff was marginal to begin with! So sorry! As to them hampering the expansion of such, well, look no further than Sen. Kennedy and the wind-farm he is blocking and you can get an idea of what sort of problems 'alternative energy sources' have. Can't have that, so it must be a grand conspiracy for economic gain by oil companies... companies also willing to invest in bio-fuels and such as PR just in case anything comes of them.

Call this the conspiracy of the 'economically challenged'.

Then there are the 'Truthers' out to show, once and for all, that skilled engineers and scientists at Popular Mechanics are far smarter and more capable than a bunch of folks wanting to have a conspiracy of the US Government to kill its own people. And, what really gets me, is that 9/11 was, indeed, a conspiracy. Started by Ramzi Binalshibh to make up for his lacks in the 1993 WTC attacks, working with a close friend to get some better ideas, going to his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and then having the plot passed over as a whole slew of ideas to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. That, in turn, spun up cells to start casing the US, getting together folks who could guide aircraft after a hijacking, funding same, and blending in with US culture. Suddenly 19 men were taking over four aircraft and inflicting nearly 3,000 casualties on US soil. That was not only a 'conspiracy' it was a 'plot' by those using 'predatory warfare' to attack the US without warrant.

Unfortunately that is a KNOWN conspiracy and an UNKNOWN conspiracy always wins over a known one hands-down, each and every single time. And if it can be a nebulous unknown government conspiracy? Well, that is perfect! No need to go through obvious reasons from a known group, like the fact the US isn't Muslim, doesn't practice sharia law, actually believes that each individual is created equal and can figure out their own destiny in life... no need for someone who wants to destroy the Nation because it upholds those things! Far better a conspiracy of some sort to finally prove.... well, I am sure those peddling this would like to prove something, but their own cluelessness is what comes across.

Call this the conspiracy of the clueless.

Then there is the War in Iraq and the 'no blood for oil' folks. I spent some time a couple of posts back dealing with this in The Worst Wars of All, but let me re-cap: under the law of nations the US was absolutely justified in attacking Iraq which would keep its word on no agreements signed during wartime, and continued to threaten Nations and undermine the sanctions on it by stalling. Those are absolutely good and necessary reasons for Nations to pick up a war that went into a cease-fire as one side was showing ZERO commitment to keep its word.

On the 'no blood for oil' side, I will point out that the very first President to make that calculus was President James Earl Carter and the 'Carter Doctrine'. He was and is on the political Left. He put down that the US would fight for its economic interests in the Middle East so as to not be blackmailed. He was willing to send force of arms to back that up. That IS 'blood for oil'. If the Left has a problem with that, they can look in the god damned mirror.

Call that a conspiracy of the unenlightened enlightened.

Then there are the bits about Iran... Apparently those in Iran actually need something to explain some pretty simple things, and if you want to find out who is destroying the Iranian economy, you need throw one stone no further than inside the borders of Iran itself. Yes, I do have some bad news for Iranians: you folks have got an oil problem! The regime in power is so utterly clueless, utterly hateful and utterly destructive, that they are willing to sacrifice the 'cash cow' of Iran, being its oil exports, in order to fund a worldwide network of Transnational Terrorists known as Hezbollah, and to NOT re-invest in their own petroleum infrastructure. One does not need the US to step in and destroy the economy of Iran... so sorry, the regime is doing that just fine on its own.

How else do you explain not being able to meet OPEC oil export quotas for... what is it now.... two years?

How else do you explain not being able to even PAY government employees, like teachers, for six months? Actually with factories closing, unemployment climbing and strikes galore, Iran has a HUGE problem in its industrial sector.

How else do you explain the growing decay of the refineries to produce gasoline, which is now causing shortages to the point where traffic on the streets has noticeably decreased? In Tehran!

Then there are the working conditions as seen by Iran's own workers that they report on, including lack of pay, arrests, torture, harassment... you don't need the United States of America to NOT PAY YOUR OWN PEOPLE! The regime is doing that just fine and dandy on its OWN! Don't try to pre-blame America for the internal lacks of the Iranian regime. That little tail gets pinned absolutely and squarely in one place: the People of Iran.

Actually, that is a problem that Mr. Alireza does not even try to examine, this from a bit later after more multi-conspiracy theoryism:

The warmongers are planning not only on destroying Iran militarily but also economically. Iran is the only obstacle remaining between America and the energy reserves in the Middle East being controlled by the military industrial complex. America is running out of oil and gas and if it does not have a “reliable source” its vital national security will be placed in danger. Wake up people.

Ah, yes, the 'warmongers' of America out to 'destroy Iran militarily' and economically. He gets the Trifecta of : Imperialism, 'military industrial complex', and 'oil'. And since the ME is obsessed about oil, let me drop a load of bricks on that.

The greatest oil reserves around are locked up in tar/oil sands and oil shales which are now economically viable because of the cost of a barrel of oil. Do you know where the greatest reserves of THAT are? The Western US and Canada. Plus the US has had a policy of not drilling on *any* of its continental slope for oil for decades, and China, Mexico and Canada have all seen that there are vast reserves out there that we have not even scratched the surface of. Congress is finally wising up and realizing that depending on foreign oil is not a 'good idea'. The US also gets a lot of petroleum from Mexico... in point of fact the places that depend on Middle Eastern oil are: Europe, China, India and Japan. Iran could be making LOTS more money if they boosted their oil exports, but their decaying petro infrastructure is now making domestic demands hard to meet. Like that gasoline problem there.

One thing that your neighbors in Iraq had to learn, right up front, is that the value of ALL known reserves of oil in Iraq are less than 10% of the US GDP and actually down into tenths of a percent economy wise. Currently that US GDP sits just a bit shy of $13 Trillion. Iran, by comparison, sits at $610 billion, or about 5% that of the US... to put that into perspective, from the Bureau of Economic Analysis GDP by State, a bit smaller than Florida $713 billion and a bit larger than Illinois $589 billion. America has spent more in Iraq than it would ever see, EVER, if it had just gone in and taken the place over. Way cheaper to deal with a tyrant in power to get oil, if only the man could have kept to his wartime agreements... more on that, later. Still, the point is that the US is spending in Iraq, about 1/6 to 1/3 the entire GDP of Iran. Or about 1.5%-2% of entire US economy which is growing, so that makes keeping track of the size of the percentage difficult as it decreases over time.

America, because it is a manufacturing nation that utilizes petroleum to leverage the skills of its working and managerial labor force, has more productivity per person than any other nation on this planet. Iran, who's oil reserves are now falling behind those of Iraq, can be a nice source of oil, but Americans prefer that people figure out how to run their own nations. After multiple wars we handed the following back to their Peoples, after WINNING: Germany, Japan, Philippines, Italy, France, South Korea (after saving it, but that war isn't over, either), and now Afghanistan and Iraq. America is the damnedest strangest 'empire' this planet has ever seen: Americans steadfastly *refuse* to take places over and run them, but have this lovely and revolutionary idea that People are able to do these things on their own, given half a chance. That is why we are helping Afghanistan and Iraq to stand up on their own, learn to pay their own way and get an accountable government in place. We prefer to send diplomats with briefcases rather than soldiers with arms, because the soldiers are just way too cheap, as these things go. A damned diplomat can get a trade agreement going that will be far larger in GAIN than any cost in arms and lives.

Of course diplomats also *lose the peace* every so often. So the cheaper means of getting a more expensive solution that wins for the most people has to be done. Really, diplomats are far more lethal than any army ever created. If you want a long, drawn out unjust peace, look no further than Versailles and the treaties just after it! Made an absolute mess of things, and caused more death than any other 'peace treaty' ever signed. That is a problem with an 'unjust peace': it is waged until the affairs between Nations becomes intolerable, and then you see warfare. Saddam was an evil, tyrannical, genocidal dictator with delusions of grandeur and hegemonic aspirations over the Middle East. He finally got so bad that the world had enough of his antics, and had to throw him out of Kuwait... and then have him agree to do things like dismantle his WMD and long range missile systems capability. Not just the artifacts of the actual bombs and missiles: the entire industries behind them, lock, stock and barrel. If he would have done THAT, he would have been able to merrily re-arm, re-stock his ammo, reinforce his armed forces, spread his influence and start to threaten folks more than he did *before* Kuwait.

And the US would have LET HIM DO THAT. He would have demonstrated that no matter how vile he was as an individual, he would be willing to be held to account for his words and agreements.

In this lovely world of ours, it is not intent that you judge people by, but their actions. Intent decides depth of commitment to those actions, but the actions themselves speak far louder than any words can do. The US has had long standing problems with the current regime in Iran, and yes Americans do know the difference between an authoritarian, dictatorial, despotic regime and the poor unfortunates being subjugated by such government. America did not like having her sovereignty violated and its embassy invaded. America did not like being attacked multiple times by Hezbollah at the behest of Iran and Syria, nor having hundreds of our Marines die who had gone to help protect Lebanon from civil war. America did not like the Khobar towers attack aimed at it in Saudi Arabia by Iranian backed Hezbollah there. And Americans are a bit fed up with Iran sending its 'Secret Cells' and Qods forces and Hezbollah into Iraq with Iranian arms and money to kill just about anyone they can set their sights on: not only Americans, but Iraqi men, women and children.

Since 1979 the American People have held in abeyance against Iran, trying to contain the uncontainable that only has a government capable of seeking domination over others to further its own view of the world. America, as a nation amongst nations that understands the law of nations, could do little to confront a regime that sends its illegitimate and predatory fighters into Bosnia, Chechnya, Algeria, Argentina, Lebanon, and the Tri-Border area of South America. We see the level of violence slowly rise as the regime in Iran sets its sights on domination and dominion for its own ends. There is one People responsible for ending this and they have not done a damned thing to do so.

The People of Iran.

Your Revolution was hijacked and then turned on you. The Shah was repressive and authoritarian, and I do wish that prior generations in the US did not look at him as 'our thug' because all such thugs are vile to America. We did not do so, but also realize that the People of Iran were unable to overcome their own internal differences and mount a coherent Revolution that would bring equality and prosperity to all. We mark 28 years of this regime and its next generation in Iran, and things, far from turning around, are getting worse in every particular just INSIDE Iran itself. As this regime now threatens other Peoples and Nations, Mr. Alireza would much prefer that the authoritarian regime goes unopposed by force of arms from the outside.

Very well, Mr. Alireza, then you must stand for the one thing that is required to ensure that other Nations do not see to their own self-protection to curb a regime that is threatening and killing the citizens of many Nations via predatory warfare. America is a Revolutionary Nation and we can point you to the exact words to use and their implications that MUST be followed by ACTIONS:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

America then spent 10% of her citizenry DYING to back those words up and did so. Another 15% fled to other colonies, unwilling to be a part of this new Nation. There is a great and grave cost to liberty and freedom, Mr. Alireza. You are saying that the evils you have are still sufferable to YOU. What about those that want nothing to do with that regime and are having unaccountable and illegitimate warfare brought to them by it? Where is THEIR JUSTICE, Mr. Alireza?

Iran has suffered thousands dying at the hands of this regime, just to its own citizenry. More thousands have died at the hands of Hezbollah in far off lands that this regime seeks dominion over. Just because you do not want war, Mr. Alireza, because you are willing to suffer the blood of more innocents dying to support an authoritarian regime, does not mean that others cannot look to such a vile government and put forth that they have had enough of its killing, its threats and its attempts to dominate other peoples in other lands.

Mr. Alireza I can assure you the fastest way to get help in bringing this regime down is to band together with fellow Iranians, put on clothing and markings to identify yourselves and take up your own force of arms and declare REVOLUTION for the People of Iran and stand by that by saying you and those fighting want no PART in the governing afterwards, that is for the People of Iran to decide free from tyranny. You will get help from the US, its Allies and Friends, we will support you in a Revolution for liberty and freedom in Iran, if you hold yourselves accountable, stand up for your People and put forward that only the People of Iran can govern it, NOT YOU. Revolutionaries who put themselves to account by not creating government but by being held accountable to the government created by their People is DAMNED RARE in this world.

And if you are willing to suffer the depredations of this regime, then do not ask others to suffer it WITH YOU especially if they have been the targets of attacks and repression and 'disappearances' by the regime, at home and abroad.

If you don't want Iran to be attacked then overthrow the damned government YOURSELVES. Because it is the current government of the Nation of Iran and it is horrific. If you don't like it but are unwilling to do the one thing necessary to END IT, then do not complain when other folks with a lower tolerance for violence and repression seek to put an end to it so that THEY can be rid of it.

Only the People of Iran can create a Revolution to save themselves.

And to save you from your fantasy conspiracies.

But that will take time and blood and fighting for an ideal of liberty and freedom.

And doing the one thing to prove those beliefs: fighting to make them real for all the People of Iran.

Sphere: Related Content

An easy terror incident to pin on...

Are we all familiar, or at least heard of, the terror incident in Mexico? You know, the oil pipelines blown up by a Leftist/Marxist group? Here, let us refresh the memory storage systems a bit:

Monday, September 17, 2007

Poor Intelligence Facilitates Mexican Bombings

By Sam Logan

Eleven bombs exploded in the early morning hours of 10 September, destroying gas pipelines operated by the Mexican state-run energy company Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) in the state of Veracruz.

Operations of hundreds of companies, in at least ten Mexican states, have been offline, collectively costing the Mexican economy over US$200 million and leaving idle some 10,000 Mexican workers.

It is the third bomb attack in as many months orchestrated by the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR), a guerrilla group many believed until 10 September to be little more than an under-funded gathering of peasants from Oaxaca.

Some facts have solidified.

The EPR has the sophistication to cause significant damage to selected targets and will continue its campaign until demands are met. After the second bombing, which shut down Pemex operations in Guanajuato and Queretaro in July, this first theory was forwarded as a strong one. It is now considered a fact.

Second, the Mexican intelligence system is not prepared to deal with this domestic threat.

In a 12 September editorial published by the Mexican daily El Universal, at least one columnist believes the Mexican intelligence system is broken. The truth is likely not far from his opinion.

According to the author, an agent placed in Oaxaca, the EPR's center of activity, warned of another attack over a month ago. Agents working with the US Central Intelligence Agency’s office in Mexico City echoed these warnings with their own analysis that suggested the EPR would strike again, and soon. Neither report could narrow down the type of attack, whether it would be a bombing or the kidnapping of a politically exposed person, but both suggested the EPR would strike again.

That from Mexidata.

Ok, got it? Now, lets take a look at the Mexican group, this from Organized Crime and Terror Activity in Mexico: 1999-2002 by Ramon J. Miro and Glenn E. Curtis 01 JAN 2003, Library of Congress:

Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR)

The Popular Revolutionary Army (Ejército Popular Revolucionario–EPR) first emerged in Guerrero state in June 1996 as an alliance of 14 underground revolutionary groups. The guerilla alliance that gave birth to the EPR was a response to systematic police brutality against local villages in Guerrero, which culminated in the massacre of 18 peasants in the municipality of Coyuca de Benítez in June 1995. At the commemoration of the Coyuca de Benítez massacre in 1996, the EPR issued a “Manfesto of Aguas Blancas,” which included a five-point statement of goals. The first objective was “overthrowing the antipopular, antidemocratic, demagogic and illegitimate government, which is at the service of national and foreign capital and the forces which sustain it, and for establishing a new government, essentially distinct from that which now holds power.”103 On August 7, 1996, at a clandestine news conference, EPR Comandante José Arturo called for a provisional revolutionary government that would reverse current free-market policies. It proposed overthrowing President Zedillo by force and reportedly distanced itself from the Zapatistas' policies of negotiation and international pressure, employing a discourse "more reminiscent of the Marxism of 1970's guerrilla movements." José Arturo stated that the EPR had carried out bank robberies and kidnappings in order to finance itself, and that a new front had been forged in the Eastern Sierra.104

The EPR has been linked to the Clandestine Revolutionary Workers Party-Union of the People (PROCUP), a deep-underground remnant of the 1970s guerilla movement in Guerrero led by the radical schoolteacher, Lucio Cabas.105 The PROCUP is suspected of having carried out the 1994 kidnapping of Mexican banking magnate Alfredo Harp Helu, who netted his captors a US$30 million ransom.106 At the time of its emergence, many observers believed the EPR might become Mexico's version of Peru's Shining Path.

In August 1996, the group carried out a series of armed actions in six states killing more than a dozen police, soldiers, and others. According to a Department of Defense (DoD) report cited by the Wall Street Journal, by 1999 the EPR had clashed about 45 times with security forces in several Mexican states, causing about 100 casualties.107

Linked to folks that love not to say much about themselves, and seen as somewhat elitist in views. Be that as it may, EPR is, itself, an amalgam of 14 groups that came together in 1996 to try and get their views across and do a bit of kidnapping, run-and-gun and the usual mayhem associated with poor terrorists. So your standard, barely held together sort of 'rebels without a clue'. Finally, from al-Reuters on the event:

Mexico oil bomb rebels in political, personal fight
Thu 13 Sep 2007, 19:23 GMT
By Frank Jack Daniel

MEXICO CITY, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The leftist rebels behind huge pipeline bombings in Mexico this week are from a small guerrilla group held together by family ties that has long personal and political grudges against the government.

The Popular Revolutionary Army, or EPR, blew up gas and oil pipelines on Monday in their biggest attack on economic targets since emerging in mountain villages of southern Mexico in the mid-1990s to kill dozens of police.

Tiburcio Cruz Sanchez, known as "The Professor," is the man the army says heads the EPR. He comes from a family of guerrillas from the southern state of Oaxaca that has been active since the 1970s.

Two of his sons are in jail for bombing banks. Human rights activists say they are innocent but were arrested to hit back at the elusive Professor and his wife, who is from another small rebel dynasty.

The EPR, believed to number under 1,000 members, launched a campaign of economic sabotage in July with bomb attacks on energy installations, repeated on a bigger scale this week.

There, that ought to do it! I will save you the current run-down on 'splinter groups' from the EPR, which seems to happen with terrorist organizations so quickly that one cannot keep track of it, and the traditional citation that when your leader is "The Professor" it had better be "Moriarty", or else you are really in the junior leagues.

Most folks get pretty hopped up on this linkage business and, really, that is what it is all about, isn't it? So when Gordon Thomas puts out some links between multiple terrorist organizations that MI-6 is speculating about, well, one does take some pause to say the least. From WorldNet Daily, 10 MAY 2006:

Osama's exploits south of border
By Gordon Thomas

LONDON – Britain's secret intelligence service, MI6, has established the first proof al-Qaida is playing a major role in the new Cold War between North and South America – with Osama bin Laden's terror network seeing itself in league with Mexican subversives in infiltrating the U.S. border.

The evidence emerged as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez swash-buckled into London after scoring a win in yet another venomous battle with Washington for influence and economic advantage across the Latin American continent.

Chavez is in London to meet the capital's anti-Bush mayor, Ken Livingstone, and other prominent British opponents of the war in Iraq. His arrival coincides with the downward spiral politically of Prime Minister Tony Blair – largely over his continued support for Bush.

Downing Street will monitor the Chavez visit closely – not least because he controls the western hemisphere's largest supply of oil reserves. As oil prices soar, Chavez has used the extra profits to reinforce his position with his electorate. He said last week he would seek "indefinite" re-election beyond the constitutional limit of 2014.

Chavez, a 51 year-old paratrooper, descended on London this week and was boosted by the knowledge that his rapidly expanding clout in Southern America could soon see a dramatic shift of power after elections in Peru, Nicaragua and Mexico.

This would result in a standoff between Western oil companies worried about rising oil prices and South American oil producers' new-found enthusiasm for threatening foreign companies with a further hike.

In the words of a MI6 memo, the situation "is a new and dangerous threat to stability that is also being exploited by al-Qaida."

Details of al-Qaeda's penetration into Latin America emerged from documents discovered during recent anti-terrorist operations in Pakistan to try and locate Osama bin Laden.

The documents included evidence that al-Qaida has established links with the Colombian terror group, FARC, and the Shining Path, SL, in Peru. They also reveal al-Qaida's links with thousands of Muslim students in the Dominican Republic.

Another Pakistani document shows the links between al-Qaida and Mexico's Popular Revolutionary Army, EPR. The documents reveal that al-Qaida sees EPR as collaborators in attacks in Mexico on foreign targets – "especially those of the United States and Britain." It also says that EPR can play a key role in allowing al-Qaida operatives to enter the United States through the busiest land crossing in the world – Tijuana.

Another document reveals that along Peru's border with Chile "a large Arab community is providing substantial sums of money for al-Qaida."

But the closest links al-Qaida has are with Venezuela. Exploiting Chavez's latest tirade against the Bush administration, al-Qaida is firmly entrenched in the country.

Ah! Lovely, isn't it? OBL, Chavez, Islamists, Marxists, Leftists, Pakistan, Peru, Chile, FARC, Shining Path, and EPR... apparently South America is looking to become the vacation spot of terrorists. So we get lots of folks doing the 'ah-ha!' fingerpointing and easy tracing from EPR to al Qaeda as the inspiration for this last event. Really, 10 SEP and all that, going for a big event, but with the Leftist/Marxist quaint idea of low body count. Huge property crime to inspire... well... yeah, you forgot about it, didn't you?

How about a bit of a different pathway, way more direct? An easy, pin the tail on the Dictator deal... this from VCrisis 15 NOV 2005, with thanks to Center for Security Policy for pointing it out:

Vladimir Villegas: Chávez’s Chess Piece in Mexico
By Raúl Tortolero El Universal Online – Mexico

The Embassy of Venezuela in Mexico has been shown, by very different sectors in that country and in Mexico, to be an instrument of the ideological propaganda and political expansion of the personal interests of Hugo Chávez. Observations of interventionism include giving electoral support to the PRD [Democratic Revolutionary Party of Mexico], even "espionage," as well as a presumed importation of high caliber weapons and contacts with the FARC, ETA and Al Qaeda.

Mexico City Tuesday, 15 November 2005 Vladimir Villegas is a person of Euro-African heritage showing a good sense of humor and charisma. Tall, robust, sporting glasses and a smiling mustache, he has been residing in Mexico for only five months. His hair thinning, and dressed without any display of luxury, very much in accord with his perennial socialist ideals that have possessed him since he was a communist student leader, he wears plastic-soled shoes.

Well, then this man is accused of televising illegal recordings in order to attack Hugo Chávez’s opponents, of creating international spy rings, of being the architect of the Venezuelan funding apparatus for Lula [in Brazil], of advising and providing funds for the campaigns of Marcelo Ebrard and Andrés Manuel López Obrador [in Mexico]. Ah, and another detail: the PGR [Office of the Attorney General of Mexico] is investigating him concerning weapons shipments from Venezuela supposedly intended for the EPR [Popular Revolutionary Army].

This is the gift President Hugo Chávez presented in the guise of a Venezuelan ambassador to this country. The Bolivarian Revolution. There was more to come.

Lino Martínez —the previous Venezuelan representative— stated to the national press that López Obrador was a “ray of light," even capable of leading the masses into a revolution, seeing as Vicente Fox had not fulfilled his campaign promises and there was misery. That being said, he and his big mouth left and flew back to his country. Then Hugo Chávez decided to stimulate us with a new representative. He did not choose someone of a more moderate profile, a tea drinker, a polished international statesman. He chose Villegas as new ambassador.

[..]

SUBVERSIVE CIRCLES

I ask him if he has signed an agreement with the federal government: he says no, but that he maintains very good relations with Michoacán, a state favorable to the PRD. And that he has been to many universities. He is identified as a promoter of the Bolivarian Circles, which he says serve just to promote solidarity with Venezuela, but which members of the PAN [Vicente Fox’s party] and the PRI [traditional party prior to Fox] assure are citizens’ networks in favor of López Obrador.

The School of Philosophy at the UNAM [Autonomous National University of Mexico] —among others— is a hotbed of Bolivarian Circles. There, it is considered normal to join them and “stickers” that say “I AM a Bolivarian Mexican” [gender-neutral Mexican@ Bolivarian@] and “Venezuela is: Democracy and Sovereignty" are distributed.

Connections among armed groups, from Venezuela and Mexico, converge in the case of a Mexican student: Alondra Durán (Oviedo). She traveled "to study” in Canada, but presumably her real political objective was to work in support of clandestine organizations. Alondra was arrested at the Ottawa airport a few months ago for having carried "subversive propaganda” from the Bolivarian Circles, the EPR and the FARC. Her name is linked to the FZLN [Zapatista National Liberation Front]. She appears on this organization’s website as one of the “signatories” of a letter of protest against the lack of a follow-up to the case of the assassination of Pavel González González, a student at the UNAM. Intelligence sources link the Bolivarian Circles to the EPR and the FARC.

There is a hypothesis that the EPR is purchasing weapons. The PGR [Office of the Mexican Attorney General] in its official communication PGR/SIEDO/UEITA/4078/2005, dated this past September 11th, and signed by José Cabrera, coordinator of the Special Unit for the Investigation of Terrorism and the Storing and Trafficking of Weapons of the SIEDO [Organized Crime Unit of the Office of the Attorney General] has requested information from Villegas —La Revista [section of El Universal (Mexico)] has a copy of the document— concerning the arrival of weapons from Venezuela into Mexico a few months ago.

Chávez's expansive zeal is no secret and his propagandistic incursions into Mexico are nothing new, and neither is support for his projects from Mexican groups. One example: outside of the hotel where a press conference by the Venezuelan president was about to begin, at the Special Summit of the Americas, in Monterrey, January of 2004, there suddenly arose a “spontaneous” demonstration in his favor, with a Venezuelan flag and everything.

Yes, Mr. Chavez throwing petro-dollars around for influence and the standard fascistic 'cult of personality' and Nationalism that leftists seem to adore on their side, even when they are fascists. So, this puts a firm and clear link to Hugo Chavez seeking to expand his personal power and get some influence with Leftist/Marxist terrorists groups, not only in Mexico, but across Latin America.

Now for the final news event that I am absolutely sure everyone has forgotten:

Chavez and Fox recall ambassadors
Published: 2005/11/14 19:25:39 GMT

Mexico and Venezuela have recalled their ambassadors amid a diplomatic spat between the two countries.

Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the move minutes after Venezuela said it was ordering home its envoy.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez refused to bow to Mexican demands to apologise for warning off Mr Fox - after describing him as a "puppy" of US imperialism.

The row began last week, after Mexico supported a failed US bid to relaunch regional free trade talks at a summit.

On Sunday, Mr Chavez accused the Mexican leader of disrespecting him and warned: "Don't mess with me sir, because you'll come out pricked."

He also accused Mr Fox again for allegedly violating protocol in trying to press for an agreement on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) when it was not on the Summit of the Americas' agenda early in November.

Mexico said the comments "strike at the dignity of the Mexican people" and demanded a formal apology from Venezuela or severing diplomatic ties.

'Sad'

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez called the demand "unjustifiable".

"The immediate return of ambassador Vladimir Villegas has been ordered," he said.

Yes! From the BBC, bash-America central! Still, you can see the one thing that I do believe most people have forgotten. Where Mr. Chavez threatens Mexico?

Ah... there you have it! No need to go through lovely hoops to get al Qaeda involved, when this is just your standard Dictator For Life doing his bit in bossing everyone else around. Send some explosives to your 'friends' in Mexico and soon enough you can remind Mexico of your ire at them. Of course there is one other man involved, in a very undistinguished way, and only by association. I mean if the folks wanting to link up al Qaeda and such are having their fun, I will have mine and throw in the other angle... from Jamestown Foundation, their article from 21 OCT 2005 on al Qaeda's Inroads Into the Caribbean:

U.S. and Trinidadian authorities have kept a close eye on the Jammat’s activities since the 9/11 attacks, but there is no hard evidence tying the group to international terrorism, let alone al-Qaeda. However, Abu Bakr did maintain links with Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi in the 1980s and 90s and considers him a close friend to this day. The Jammat reportedly received funds through Libya’s World Islamic Call Society (WICS) to finance the construction of its main mosque, schools, and a medical center, but there is no evidence linking Tripoli with the failed 1990 coup attempt. Abu Bakr’s most recent publicized links with controversial international figures include Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

There you have it, Abu Bakr, leader of the only Islamic coup in the Western Hemisphere, having links to Kadaffy, and Hugo Chavez. And, finally, this link for the testimony of Janice L. Kephart suring Hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims on 08 JUN 2006:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is well known for his violent dictatorship-like leadership, affiliations with Cuba (where his troops are sent for training), and his support of FARC in Columbia (enhancing chaos and violence in that country). In 2001, he signed cooperation agreements with Libya, Iraq, and Iran. On 9/12/01, Chavez ordered government workers to burn U.S. flags in the streets to celebrate the attacks of 9/11.

What is less known is that in January 2003, Chavez’s former personal pilot, having come to the United States after an attempt on his life and claiming political asylum, stated that immediately following 9/11, Chavez ordered the pilot (Venezuelan Air Force Major Juan Diaz Castillo) to "to organize, coordinate, and execute a covert operation consisting of delivering financial resources, specifically $1 million, to [Afghanistan's] Taliban government. The purpose of the “donation” was to “assist the Al Qaeda terrorist organization," while, "making it appear as if humanitarian aid were being extended to the Afghan people."

According to Castillo’s account, one million dollars was delivered to Afghanistan via the Venezuelan ambassador in India. The Taliban acknowledged receiving $100,000 in "humanitarian aid." Castillo said the remaining $900,000 went to al Qaeda. Chavez never answered the allegations, despite public demands to do so.

According to the National Review, Castillo’s allegations are consistent with remarks made by the former head of Venezuela’s border security, who stated that while in that position he was pressured to permit anonymous travel of Middle East and other terrorists passing through Venezuela and to deceive U.S. terrorism investigators. "I quit my job when I got tired of doing dirty work for Chavez with the Cubans looking over my shoulder," he said.

Chavez and al Qaeda, with links to all sorts of fun people across Latin America and the Caribbean. Of course the Kassar connection is through FARC... but you knew that, already!

EPR to Chavez to FARC to al-Kassar: 3 connections. And as my spanish isn't up to any snuff, I can't really get the connections via FARC directly, but see the narco-traffic as part of it.

Sphere: Related Content

The Worst Wars of All

From Monsieur de Vattel in Law of Nations, Book IV:

§ 6. How far war may be continued.

The love of peace should equally prevent us from embarking in a war without necessity, and from persevering in it after the necessity has ceased to exist. When a sovereign has been compelled to take up arms for just and important reasons, he may carry on the operations of war till he has attained its lawful end, which is, to procure justice and safety. (Book III § 28.)

If the cause be dubious, the just end of war can only be to bring the enemy to an equitable compromise (Book III. § 38); and consequently the war must not be continued beyond that point. The moment our enemy proposes or consents to such compromise, it is our duty to desist from hostilities.

But if we have to do with a perfidious enemy, it would be imprudent to trust either his words or his oaths. In sucli [sic] case, justice allows and prudence requires that we should avail ourselves of a successful war, and follow up our advantages, till we have humbled a dangerous and excessive power, or compelled the enemy to give us sufficient security for the time to come.

Finally, if the enemy obstinately rejects equitable conditions, he himself forces us to continue our progress till we have obtained a complete and decisive victory, by which he is absolutely reduced and subjected. The use to be made of victory has been shown above. (Book III. Chap. VIII., IX., XIII.)

This is how wars end and was written far before the era of 'Total War', and yet presages it completely. Yet it points out how one is to behave to achieve this thing known as 'peace'. Amongst honorable and worthy foes that have shown themselves to hold by their word and agreements, and have demonstrated no duplicity in their activities in conduct of war, then when one proposes compromise, it is time for a 'cease-fire' and to start working towards a compromise.

To a foe who shows no ability to hold to any word, acts contrarily to the customs of war and such things as a flag of truce or abiding by a cease-fire to tend to wounded on each side, then that is not to be considered and set aside to continue prosecution of war against same: those that cannot abide by civilized conduct on THEIR side of war are to be held to that lack and fighting continued.

Finally there is the enemy that rejects equitable conditions, refuses to abide by agreements during a cease-fire or other armistice, and will not be held to an agreement nor give any reason to demonstrate that they mean to move past their current positions in outlook to broker agreement. That is an enemy dealing in bad faith and is an oath breaker. They get no further chance at peace EVER as they have demonstrated their inability to know what peace is and how it is built.

In each of these the demonstration of honoring agreements by a Nation is paramount: they determine the course of that Nation by those in charge of it. The first order of brokered agreements and peace have a long history, with the 20th century seeing the Armistice Agreements of WWI and the Peace Treaties of WWII as prime examples, but lesser examples in the Philippines, Cyprus and elsewhere points to the viability of this Nation based outlook. Nations can go to war for their own reasons and come to equitable terms to end conflicts. The question of those terms lasting, is something else again.

The second category, unfortunately, also has 20th century views, where an enemy seeks to utilize an armistice or other agreements made during wartime to then extend their capability or make NO final peace agreements. North Korea is a stand-out, with only a 'cease-fire' holding on the Korean Peninsula and no valid attempts by the North Korean governments to come to a lasting peace. While India and Pakistan have a series of agreements, the 'war of artillery' in the high mountain regions continues with desultory shelling because few, if any infantry can operate at such altitudes.

And the last category, of a foe that abrogates agreements outright, has seen a few during the last century. Saddam Hussein would hold to no cease-fire nor to his agreements for full ending of his WMD programs. In the Balkans peace can last for days, months, years or, under the dictator Tito, decades, but they also seem to fall apart with undo ease and individuals committing war crimes, like Slobodan Milošević and, well, it must say something when an entire page at Wikipedia has to be set aside to list war criminals for the Balkans.

These are the things growing out of warfare, both just and unjust as seen by Vattel in Book III:

§ 1. Definition of war.(136)

WAR is that state in which we prosecute our right by force. We also understand, by this term, the act itself, or the manner of prosecuting our right by force: but it is more conformable to general usage, and more proper in a treatise on the law of war, to understand this term in the sense we have annexed to it.

§ 2. Public war.(136)

Public war is that which takes place between nations or sovereigns, and which is carried on in the name of the public power, and by its order. This is the war we are here to consider: — private war, or that which is carried on between private individuals, belongs to the law of nature properly so called.

Public war is what we have grown used to in the industrialized and mechanized era: the wars of the early to mid 20th century were, by and large, Public wars. By the advent and power of the Nation State from the late 19th century onwards, the idea that 'private war' would ever be fought, was slowly being outmoded. Threats to Nations shifted, more and more, to other Nations entirely, as private individuals or groups could not raise funds nor forces to fight a 'private war'. The era in the century after the end of the US Civil War would see the pre-eminance of 'public war' and those waging private wars driven from the landscape.

What happened to the world was a change in how diplomacy and conflict became confined and the worries about 'private war' vanished. But before getting to 'private war', which, as Vattel puts it, 'belongs to the law of nature', a bit on who wages war and what makes a war 'just'. Following in Book III:

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.(137)

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.1 Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

This is the underpinning of all war treaties and conventions, from the Paris Treaty to the Hague Conventions to the modern Geneva Conventions.

First and foremost of all understandings is: Private individuals do not get to wage war. It is damned dangerous, indeed fatal, to Nations to allow individuals within their Nations that are unelected, unselected and are not leading the Nation in any way, shape or form, to wage war. Only the sovereign power of the Nation can decide on war, be it a King or other individual designated by Constitution or other agreed upon compact or tradition for that Nation.

Now onto what makes 'just' war, still in Book III:

§ 26. What is in general a just cause of war.

The right of employing force, or making war, belongs to nations no farther than is necessary for their own defence, and for the maintenance of their rights (§ 3). Now, if any one attacks a nation, or violates her perfect rights, he does her an injury. Then, and not till then, that nation has a right to repel the aggressor, and reduce him to reason. Further, she has a right to prevent the intended injury, when she sees herself threatened with it (Book II. § 50). Let us then say in general, that the foundation, or cause of every just war is injury, either already done or threatened. The justificatory reasons for war show that an injury has been received, or so far threatened as to authorize a prevention of it by arms. It is evident, however, that here the question regards the principal in the war, and not those who join in it as auxiliaries. When, therefore, we would judge whether a war be just, we must consider whether he who undertakes it has in fact received an injury, or whether he be really threatened with one. And, in order to determine what is to be considered as an injury, we must be acquainted with a nation's rights, properly so called, — that is to say, her perfect rights. These are of various kinds, and very numerous, but may all be referred to the general heads of which we have already treated, and shall further treat in the course of this work. Whatever strikes at these rights is an injury, and a just cause of war.

§ 27. What war is unjust.

The immediate consequence of the premises is, that if a nation takes up arms when she has received no injury, nor is threatened with any, she undertakes an unjust war. Those alone, to whom an injury is done or intended, have a right to make war.

'Just' war is seen in defense of a Nation or her rights as a Nation both against attacks and against impending threats to the Nation. As we have seen in Book IV, these also include abiding by rules of war and agreements during wartime, including all cease-fires and armistice agreements. Those that do not do so, do not demonstrate good faith in such agreements or otherwise abrogate them can be attacked and with 'just' cause. However, to be 'just' must also find there to be proper 'motives' for war, and these are just as important and need to complement the 'just' reasons for warfare:

§ 30. Proper motives.

I call proper and commendable motives those derived from the good of the state, from the safety and common advantage of the citizens. They are inseparable from the justificatory reasons, — a breach of justice being never truly advantageous. Though an unjust war may for a time enrich a state, and extend her frontiers, it renders her odious to other nations, and exposes her to the danger of being crushed by them. Besides, do opulence and extent of dominion always constitute the happiness of states? Amidst the multitude of examples which might here be quoted, let us confine our view to that of the Romans. The Roman republic ruined herself by her triumphs, by the excess of her conquests and power. Rome, when mistress of the world, but enslaved by tyrants and oppressed by a military government, had reason to deplore the success of her arms, and to look back with regret on those happy times when her power did not extend beyond the bounds of Italy, or even when her dominion was almost confined within the circuit of her walls.

Vicious motives are those which have not for their object the good of the state, and which, instead of being drawn from that pure source, are suggested by the violence of the passions. Such are the arrogant desire of command, the ostentation of power, the thirst of riches, the avidity of conquest, hatred, and revenge.

War to enrich a state is not a commendable motive. Wars to gain power, control over neighbors or for various other primal reasons, are all 'vicious motives' that are those more proper to animals than humans.

I will digress to the moment, here, and clearly state that those in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century, that have imputed reasons of trade or trade benefit for war, must tread carefully. That is not mere rhetorical ground, but ground to give offense to a Nation that sees itself justly at war. Those that state 'No blood for oil' would be right if they could demonstrate that the cost of war was taken up for the mere benefit of oil, but by being unable to demonstrate that and, even in the run-up to the war with Iraq, having the cost outweigh any and ALL benefit of the resource at question, has a serious problem in that they are slandering the Nation, its leaders and those fighting for the Nation. Those that wish to use the economic debasement reason must realize that their sword must be mighty and demonstrable beyond rhetoric, otherwise such outlooks are likely to destabilize civil government in ways that may not be friendly to oneself or the Nation as a whole.

If one implies base motives, it is best to ensure that one does not have their own showing in their implications. That would be, as Vattel goes through it:

§ 31. War undertaken upon just grounds, but from vicious motives.

The whole right of the nation, and consequently of the sovereign, is derived from the welfare of the state; and by this rule it is to be measured. The obligation to promote and maintain the true welfare of the society or state gives the nation a right to take up arms against him who threatens or attacks that valuable enjoyment. But if a nation, on an injury done to her, is induced to take up arms, not by the necessity of procuring a just reparation, but by a vicious motive, she abuses her right. The viciousness of the motive tarnishes the lustre of her arms, which might otherwise have shone in the cause of justice: — the war is not undertaken for the lawful cause which the nation had to engage in it: that cause is now no more than a pretext. As to the sovereign in particular, the ruler of the nation — what right has he to expose the safety of the state, with the lives and fortunes of the citizens, to gratify his passions? It is only for the good of the nation that the supreme power is intrusted to him; and it is with that view that he ought to exert it: that is the object prescribed to him even in his least important measures: and shall he undertake the most important and the most dangerous, from motives foreign or contrary to that great end? Yet nothing is more common that such a destructive inversion of views; and it is remarkable, that, on this account, the judicious Polybius gives the name of causes2 to the motives on which war is undertaken, — and of pretexts3 to the justificatory reasons alleged in defence of it. Thus he informs us that the cause of the war which Greece undertook against the Persians was the experience she had had of their weakness, and that the pretext alleged by Philip, or by Alexander after him, was the desire of avenging the injuries which the Greeks had so often suffered, and of providing for their future safety.

§ 32. Pretexts.

Let us, however, entertain a better opinion of nations and their rulers. There are just causes of war, real justificatory reasons; and why should there not be sovereigns who sincerely consider them as their warrant, then they have besides reasonable motives for taking up arms? We shall therefore give the name of pretexts to those reasons alleged as justificatory, but which are so only in appearance, or which are even absolutely destitute of all foundation. The name of pretexts may likewise be applied to reasons which are, in themselves, true and well-founded, but, not being of sufficient importance for undertaking a war, are made use of only to cover ambitious views, or some other vicious motive. Such was the complaint of the czar Peter I. that sufficient honours had not been paid him on his passage through Riga. His other reasons for declaring war against Sweden I here omit.

Pretexts are at least a homage which unjust men pay to justice. He who screens himself with them shows that he still retains some sense of shame. He does not openly trample on what is most sacred in human society: he tacitly acknowledges that a flagrant injustice merits the indignation of all mankind.

These are both the categories being imputed by those doing the 'No blood for oil' concept. Hey, you didn't think this was a MODERN thing, did you? By imputing base motives for war in Iraq, and not citing how the actual justifications and motives given are NOT sufficient for war, are trying to undermine the right of a nation to utilize war for self-protection and to ensure its rights as a nation. Those wishing to impute that for Iraq oil is the only and over-riding concept and that the war is unjust because of that have not done two important things:

1) They have not demonstrated that the actual reasons given for the conflict, upholding of treaties with multiple nations, protecting those that had been captured during the previous conflict and being a threat to neighbors and genocidal behavior towards his own population are not sufficiently 'just' nor 'proper' motivations. Under the law of nations these are ALL 'just' and 'proper' motivations for war between nations, with the abridgment of sworn treaties and agreements during wartime being 'just' and 'proper' ALONE.

2) That all motivations given are 'pretexts' for the underlying one of material advantage to the nation or its ruler. To date, while companies the sovereign had been associated had gained contracts, their fulfillment is done under federal law falling under the jurisdiction of Congress for its writing and via its rules for enactment. To demonstrate profiteering for personal gain, one would need demonstrate that war-time contracts and long distance mobility of individuals and goods during war in an active war zone are being charged too high a rate for those things. The US Code and Federal regulations sets outlooks on those, and prosecution of such cases would demonstrate some validity to a company, but direct profiteering by intent for the sovereign has not been demonstrated. And as the other motives and justifications are sufficient, in and of themselves, for warfare, those would have to be completely countered 'in detail': each and every single one of them. To date no one nor any organization has demonstrated this.

Thus the form of the Iraq War as continued after the original Gulf War findings are:

1. The Nation of Iraq did not hold to its signed agreements to demonstrate disarmament of WMD capabilities.


2. The Nation of Iraq did not hold to its cease-fire agreements.


3. The Nation of Iraq attempted to undermine (1) with its blatant blocking and abridgement of inspectors during the cease-fire.


4. The Nation of Iraq did not return captured Kuwaitis nor US military personnel missing in their territory.
   
5. The Nation of Iraq was aiding and harboring known enemies of those it had a cease-fire with in an attempt to undermine it.


6. The Nation of Iraq continued to attempt attacks on its own population either directly or via those mentioned in (5).


7. The Nation of Iraq abridging (1-6) with multiple nations as co-signatories of the cease-fire, inspection and protection agreements both separately and via multiple UN resolutions.

Each of these are grave and deep offenses amongst nations, and as they are ALL under the wartime purviews, they can be viewed not as wilfull repudiation of the law of nations making Iraq an enemy for all nations via the UN defiance. What this type of war is, is *also* described by Vattel, in Book III:

§ 41. War undertaken to punish a nation.

When offensive war has for its object the punishment of a nation, it ought, like every other war, to be founded on right and necessity. 1. On right: — an injury must have been actually received. Injury alone being a just cause of war (§ 26), the reparation of it may be lawfully prosecuted: or if, in its nature, it be irreparable (the only case in which we are allowed to punish), we are authorized to provide for our own safety, and even for that of all other nations, by inflicting on the offender a punishment capable of correcting him, and serving as an example to others. 2. A war of this kind must have necessity to justify it; that is to say, that, to be lawful, it must be the only remaining mode to obtain a just satisfaction; which implies a reasonable security for the time to come. If that complete satisfaction, be offered, or if it may be obtained without a war, the injury is done away, and the right to security no longer authorizes us to seek vengeance for it. — (See Book II. §§ 49, 52.)

The nation in fault is bound to submit to a punishment which she has deserved, and to suffer it by way atonement: but she is not obliged to give herself up to the discretion of an incensed enemy. Therefore, when attacked she ought to make a tender of satisfaction, and ask what penalty is required; and if no explicit answer be given, or the adversary attempts to impose a disproportionate penalty, she then acquires a right to resist, and her defence becomes lawful.

On the whole, however, it is evident that the offended party alone has a right to punish independent persons. We shall not here repeat what we have said elsewhere (Book II. § 7) of the dangerous mistake, or extravagant pretensions, of those who assume a right of punishing an independent nation for faults which do not concern them — who, madly setting themselves up as defenders of the cause of God, take upon them to punish the moral depravity, or irreligion, of a people not committed to their superintendency.

Not only does the Nation get punishment for its actions, but individuals who are the cause of the motivations to be taken, can also be punished. With justification of the Nation breaking war-time agreements, breaking the cease-fire multiple times, and harboring those that threaten the agreements and those under its safety provisions, a war to punish Iraq, though never stated explicitly, is what happened.

There aren't many of these types of wars on the books: where those in power are so blatantly disingenuous, so self-serving in their outlook, and unwilling to abide by any agreement made during wartime, that one must fight to end them. We do wish, in this enlightened age, that all of those in the role of sovereign for their Nation would actually hold out some welfare for those they govern over as a prime thing to do in this world. Even when they don't, giving agreements and holding to them to other sovereign Nations, would at least demonstrate that no matter how foul you were, as a person, you were willing to acknowledge *some* responsibility for your actions. Saddam Hussein could have ended all sanctions against Iraq within a month or two of signing the cease-fire: take the inspectors to each and every facility they wanted to go to, have them catalog everything and cart it off for destruction. Literally, less than a year to do that.

Saddam would have been left in power, with the remains of his Armies, secret police forces, murderous conduct, and even most of his short range missile capacity. Throw in a couple of snap inspections a year to ensure that no new WMD material is coming in, and his *conventional* forces could SWELL in size and the US would have left Saudi Arabia with a token force of advisors, at most. He would still have the ability to threaten his neighbors, boss them around and play his hand as a secular dictator who was *much better* than that Islamic sort next door in Iran. Probably would have gotten in another war, sooner or later, maybe with the Saudis or the Jordanians or the love/hate finally going cold with Syria. Maybe even encourage Kurds in Turkey while trying to expel the Kurds in Iraq, just to cause trouble.

He would not keep his agreements, and so missed out on all of that. He wanted to play the 'Arab tyrant that stood up to America'.

If a tyrant cannot be trusted for agreements made during wartime then how can *anyone*, in their right mind, trust him during *peace*?

To really put a fine point on it, lets take Alan Greenspan's view of the war, from his purely economic standpoint, which he has honed to a fine edge while his talents for statecraft appear to be lacking. This from ABC News, amongst many, carrying his views of 15 SEP 2007 [Source: ABC News Australia, AFP article, adding link as it didn't take at posting]:

Mr Greenspan, who as head of the US central bank was famous for his tight-lipped reserve, is uncharacteristically direct, also accusing President George W Bush of abandoning Republican principles on the economy.

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows - the Iraq war is largely about oil," he wrote in reported excerpts of 'The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World', which is set for release today.

Thus a man on a book tour brings forth the view that 'Iraq was largely about oil'. Ah, 'political convenience', and I am sure that those that once reviled Mr. Greenspan will now turn right around and *praise* his views on the world of oil markets, Nation states and why Nations go to war! Why, this sounds like pure, naked blind American ambition, as was previously stated:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Do those on the Left remember that?

No?

Such purely crass motives must only come from someone bent on global domination, no?

Quite the contrary!

It comes from the 1980 State of the Union address by President James Earl Carter. It is called 'The Carter Doctrine'.

Remember now - 'No blood for oil'!

So, if you are shouting 'No blood for oil' then please, let me hear you revile President Carter's doctrine as he stated it, because that is what you are reviling against. You want the guy who started with that concept of 'blood for oil'? Then look no further than President Carter. Economics before life, before anything... 'blood for oil', not stated that bluntly, but the equation is there.

The reason I place the Nation *ahead* of economics, is that it tells the right thing to do in a given circumstance and what to support and *why* that support is important. It does not shift with political winds or 'correctness' or 'safeguarding conservative values': it tells me what is necessary to ensure that we can HAVE values and cherish them as a People. I place no faith in politics, and find it working very hard to destroy this Nation we have because it devalues what it means to have a Nation amongst us. I am more than ready to leave values up to my fellow citizens so long as they do not seek to ramrod them down my throat from *either* of these two, lovely, sterile sides.

That is why I look to the law of nations to tell me what is right *amongst* nations, so I can then gauge how well the politics of my nation is supporting it. I do wish that we actually understood what civilization means to us so that we could hold it and be forthright in our differences, and let those differences end when the safety of the Nation is put at risk. The Constitution guides us within the Nation and the law of nations guides the activities amongst Nations, and all that the Constitution enshrines is that exact same concept.

Do you see that part in Book III, para. 4 above? Goes like this:

It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it?

This is one of the most important things to understand about the law of nations, and it is being willfully forgotten and, indeed, purposely pushed down in this modern age. Individuals from a Nation do *not* get to conduct their affairs in other Nations outside of the law of nations. Diplomacy, as one means of addressing the rights and wrongs between Nations belongs only to those empowered to do it by that sovereign nation. Our own Constitution re-iterates this in Article II, Section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Congress gets to regularize treaty language via laws, but those laws only exist so long as the treaty does. The are the Head of State powers for the sovereign nation of the United States and they are vested solely in the Executive Branch. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., which was handed down on 21 DEC 1936 and puts down the Law of the Land when addressing who can and cannot do Foreign Policy for the United States:

[..]

(2) The powers of the Federal Government over foreign or external affairs differ in nature and origin from those over domestic or internal affairs. P. 315.

(3) The broad statement that the Federal Government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs. In that field, the primary purpose of the Constitution was to carve from the general mass of legislative powers then possessed by the States such portions as it was thought desirable to vest in the Federal Government, leaving those not included in the enumeration still in the States. Id.

(4) The States severally never possessed international powers. P. 316.

(5) As a result of the separation from Great Britain by the Colonies, acting as a unit, the powers of external sovereignty passed from the Crown not to the Colonies severally, but to the Colonies in their collective and corporate capacity as the United States of America. Id.

(6) The Constitution was ordained and established, among other things, to form "a more perfect Union." Prior to that event, the Union, declared by the Articles of Confederation to be "perpetual," was the sole possessor of external sovereignty, and in the Union it remained without change save insofar as the Constitution, in express terms, qualified its exercise. Though the States were several, their people, in respect of foreign affairs, were one. P. 317.

(7) The investment of the Federal Government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. P. 318.

(8) In the international field, the sovereignty of the United States is complete. Id.

(9) In international relations, the President is the sole organ of the Federal Government. P. 319.

(10) In view of the delicacy of foreign relations and of the power peculiar to the President in this regard, Congressional legislation which is to be made effective in the international field must [p306] often accord to him a degree of discretion and freedom which would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved. P. 319.

(11) The marked difference between foreign and domestic affairs in this respect is recognized in the dealings of the houses of Congress with executive departments. P. 321.

[..]

There is a direct line of consistency between the law of nations, the US Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling, and it does, indeed, let the President set the foreign policy of the United States. And do you see the part that individuals or even Congress has in this?

NONE.

There is no 'Congressional role in diplomacy' and there is no 'people's diplomacy' or any other fantastical view of trying to make peace with foreign powers. That is done by the President and if the Senate likes any treaty then they may sign off on it. All of those may have 'opinions' but they may not be put into practice outside the purview of the Office of the President. It is not only illegal, as seen by the SCOTUS, and not only unconstitutional, but it is uncivilized under the law of nations for individuals to take the law into their own hands when addressing a foreign power.

Apparently no one bothers to teach what civilization is, these days, in schools.

The law is an outgrowth of the boundaries of responsibilities set at multiple levels in civilization, with the law of nations being the prime set of laws from which all Nations can utilize their sovereign power and be considered an equal, regardless of national size or might. Internally it is up to each Nation to decide how they will run themselves, but they must adhere to the law of nations to be considered a nation. The law of nations has the enforcement capability of all nations recognizing when the order of nations is threatened by a rogue actor amongst them, and putting a stop to that actor and getting in new government that recognizes its responsibility to be one of many.

Wars fought for this reason have been few, but they have had a large impact on western civilization by ridding it of power hungry dictators that would hold themselves accountable to no one. Nazi Germany found itself at war when become a predator once too often when they attacked Poland. France and Great Britain were not up to the task of immediately prosecuting a war, however, and so France would fall. Napoleon Bonaparte was likewise seen as a threat to the order of nations and other nations banded together to bring him down. The US Revolutionary war, while seen as an advantageous war for France, but also gained supporters from such places as Poland, that saw injustice being performed on the colonists and supported their fight.

Today's incapacity with the UN is a direct outgrowth of no longer trying to hold ANY Nation accountable for ANY action it takes. Instead of trying to rid Lebanon of this non-state actor called Hezbollah, the UN actually ends up SUPPORTING IT by its presence and PROTECTING IT. That has caused Hezbollah to expand and become a global operation, with parts now in: Chechnya, Algeria, Bosnia, Tri-Border Area of S. America, Argentina, and even support cells in such places as the US and Japan, not to speak of the UK, France, Germany... remember, this is what comes from the UN supporting terrorists and not doing a thing about them.

Not that the UN can actually do something about them as the activities they perform are even worse than having to depose a tyrant who will not be held to any agreement. NO, the final and worse form of warfare has been mentioned, but it is more fully illuminated in these paragraphs in Vattel's Book III:

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.5 Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.6 Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,7 caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war.

This last form is done by groups that are not Nations and, therefore, are collections of individuals setting about to wage war on their own. Terrorists wage illegitimate, predatory war for one thing: power. That is their gain and spoils of war, as they do not seek earthly riches but earthly gain known as domination over their fellow man. Money is not the only riches that drive mankind, and those seeking to wage illegitimate and predatory warfare to rule by sword are seeking riches even beyond that of gems, jewels, coin or cash. They seek the right to dominate over the SOURCE of those things, so as to benefit by them and have no law over them in their domination.

Bringing the tyrant of Iraq down was 'just' as has been seen by the law of nations since it was first formulated. The US is in a war in which those who are resorting to predation, who refuse to be held accountable and who see themselves as outside and above all man made laws, seek to bring the US down and enslave or subjugate its people. This is not a war that the US should fight alone, as these are a threat to all of mankind. William Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries on the Law of England before the American Revolution, in Book 4, Chapter 5 Of Offences Against the law of nations, and would see these individuals thusly:

As therefore he has renounced all the benefits of society and government, and has reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature, by declaring war against all mankind, all mankind must declare war against him: so that every community hath a right, by the rule of self-defence, to inflict that punishment upon him, which every individual would in a state of nature have been otherwife entitled to do, any invasion of his person or personal property.

They are named, just before that, as hostis humani generis - enemy of mankind. Terrorism is but a tactic used by those waging a savage, predatory war so as to rule over mankind by might and accountable to no law.

To those wishing Geneva Convention rights: you demean the concept of civilized action, accountability and having law to uphold civilization by giving these who seek to bring it down any measure at all. When captured on the battlefield they are given summary justice. Finding individuals to be illegal enemy combatants, given no warrant by any Nation to fight us, wearing no uniform, and being under no sovereign state is enough for such summary justice to be done. In the heat of battle, they are not treated as worthy adversaries, but savages fighting for might and domination only. That is the law of nations, and the Executive, being Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Armies and Navies of the Union can order that justice to be done on his own: Congress may not intervene as this is a matter of National survival against those attempting to bring all Nations under their domain.

We know this to be the case as one previous President has ordered such for the US Army in the Field Manual - 100:

Art. 82.

Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

Why this must be some barbaric President, if you listen to the Leftists and Transnationalists of our modern era! Yes, beyond the pale of all civilization, truly an outcast! Nixon, right? No. Hoover? No. Theodore Roosevelt? No.

It comes from this source:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD

Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln. The FM-100 he signed off on was last reprinted in 1898, just to give you an idea of its longevity.

The indoctrination to FORGET what it means to have a Nation state has taken deep root in America. And we have forgotten what it means to have a Nation amongst Nations and for citizens to actually realize they are restricted by the nation state system in their actions. Yet, when individuals act as their own sovereign outside of the nation state system, they have "reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature". One can have society and nations or not.

Apparently we are deciding on 'not', and seeking the savage state of nature of all against all forevermore, and rule by the sword until Empire is made so that all are beholden to those very few who rule.

'No blood for oil!' is all very well and good to say inside our Nation as an internal discussion with your fellow citizens. Once you promulgate it OUTSIDE our Nation, you are taking the law into your own hands. That is reverting to savagery and seeking to impose your opinion upon others without accountability for your actions to society. That is placing oneself outside the law.

Above the law.

And becoming: hostis humani generis.

Enemy of mankind.

You self-select to be a savage when you do these activities. Be warned that the ancient right of self-defense is still available to protect society from you when you violate our compact to have a nation... and our civilized structure to have nations accountable to each other. By seeking boundless liberty for yourself and the rightness of your opinion above all others, you have declared your freedom from civilization. That step already sets oneself outside the society and all societies. From there it is usually one small step to enforcing that by arms upon your fellow man, so that there is no choice for them... unless they resist you in self-defense.

The terrorists have brought back the age of illegitimate warfare, savage warfare, predatory warfare, to mankind by our kindness to them. Join their ranks and do not be surprised if civilization takes up arms to resist and give the ancient rules throat once more. For that is the right of those who are civilized: to band together to have society, to have nation and to work with other nations to end savagery.

The choice to be civilized is in the hands of each individual.

Only you can make yourself civilized.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton - War then, War now

War then - 23 DEC 1997 via DefenseLink:

BRUSSELS, Dec. 23, 1997 – During a preholiday visit to Bosnia Dec. 22 President Clinton told American troops thanks to their efforts, the Balkan nation is no longer "the powder keg at the heart of Europe."

"We gave you a mission and you delivered," Clinton told members of the Army's 1st Armored Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "What you are doing for your country is a good and noble thing," he said. "You are doing it well, and we are grateful."

"They made an agreement at Dayton that we are doing our dead level best to help them enforce," Clinton said. The United States is determined not only to do its part, but also expects the Bosnians to theirs, he said.

The president told American troops at Eagle Base the young Muslims, Serbs and Croats he met in Sarajevo all want peace. "It was like a chorus," Clinton said, "They said, 'Stay just a little longer. We don't understand why we're supposed to hate each other. We don't want that kind of future. Please stay.'"

Clinton's visit came four days after he announced U.S. forces will participate in a follow-on peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. "In spite of all you have done," he said in Tuzla, "I think it is imperative that we not stop until the peace here has a life of its own, until it can endure without us. We have worked too hard to let this go."

Grand outlook from a President, and how did we get there?

From Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p.345 Dec 9, 1999 at On The Issues:

On March 21, 1999, Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: “I urged him to bomb.” The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The President expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, “You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The next day the President declared that force was necessary.

And what of this concept of running and causing a holocaust? Brave ideals, surely.

Remarks at The Sorbonne, Paris, France Jun 17, 1999 by Hillary Clinton from On The Issues:

I’ve met people who are determined to rebuild Kosovo with a sense of positive energy and not vindictiveness and retribution. This has been possible because our nations-our leaders and our citizens-stood up against evil. Now there are some who I know who would quibble with my use of that word, but I think it fully describes the conflict we have been waging these last few months. The many democracies that came together to wage this battle against Milosevic may have spoken different languages and even held different political views. But they have sent a unified message at the end of this century that says we will not turn away when human beings are cruelly expelled, or when they are denied basic rights and dignities because of how they look or how they worship. When crimes against humanity rear their ugly heads, we have to send such a message as an international community.

Yes, crimes against huminty by a foul dictator. Crimes against Nations and Peoples. Very much a terrorist regime. There are, however, prices to pay...

1997 report on a staff trip to the NTC and JRTC (National Training Center (NTC) and the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) conducted by Senate staff:

Army-wide Shortages in Key Personnel

Despite high operating tempos and work loads, both OPFORs at the NTC and JRTC were described as fully manned, enjoying high esprit de corps, and having retention rates at least as good as the rest of the Army, if not better. For the units rotating into the NTC and JRTC—i.e. the Army's combat units; that is to say, the heart and sole of the Army—there is a very different story. I was told the following:

Units coming to both training centers frequently do not come with many of their sub-unit commanders; these have frequently been assigned to peacekeeping missions or other deployments that separate them from their units. As a result, sub-units—from basic squads on up—do not train with the commanders that they would go to war with. When this happens, it violates a key dictum of readiness and one of the basic points of having the NTC and the JRTC: the Army should “train just as you go to war.”

At the NTC, units rotating in typically come with a 60% shortage in mechanics and a 50% shortage in “mounted” mechanized infantry (in their Bradley APCs). These were described as “Army-wide” shortages: they were demonstrated by virtually all the units coming to the NTC. These shortages were described as due to these personnel, especially the mechanics, being deployed abroad for missions such as Bosnia. On average, all Army personnel now spend from 180 to 220 days of each year away from their home base, and families, on deployments. This average used to be about 165 days per year. According to Army testimony to Congress, the increase in these deployments is for peacekeeping missions.

At the JRTC, units were described as typically missing 25% of their basic infantry: mostly junior enlisted personnel with combat military specialties and mid grade non-commissioned officer (NCO) personnel. This was described as a recruiting problem and specifically not because of deployments such as Bosnia.

In actuality, these problems may be worse than indicated here. I was told at the NTC that the NCO shortages are often temporarily addressed by pulling junior NCOs into the unfilled senior and mid level slots to make more complete units for training purposes. At the JRTC, because one third of each brigade's junior enlisted and NCO personnel do not deploy for a rotation, it is possible that gaps in the units that do deploy are filled with those that would otherwise stay home. I was told this is not occurring; however, I am skeptical that it never happens.

Warning from the Senate on the readiness of US forces as seen from the training centers, if the President would care to listen.

10 NOV 1999 briefing on Army Readinessfrom Defenselink:

The Army chief of staff reported to Congress on October 26th that the Army remains a trained and ready force, able to fight and win our nation's wars, if called upon.

Current concerns about readiness are the result of two of the Army's 10 combat divisions reporting a lower-than-normal readiness level for the month of October in the category of personnel availability. These Army divisions are presently providing forces to the Balkans, the 10th Mountain Division in Bosnia and the 1st Infantry Division in Kosovo.

These divisions have deployed fully ready forces to the Balkans. The issue is not resource inadequacies -- that is, training, manning, or equipment shortfalls. Instead, it reflects the fact that the Army's current readiness reporting system requires commanders to assess and report their unit's level of readiness based upon their ability to deploy ready forces to a major theater war within time lines established in the war plans. Further, commanders report the readiness of their divisions as a whole and do not report separately for their forces split between home station and the Balkans.

The commanders have lowered readiness assessments out of concern that they may be unable to disengage from the Balkans, retrain, and redeploy forces in time to meet their major theater war requirement deployment dates, as specified in the current war plans.

We have a force structure capable of winning two near-simultaneous major theater wars, not two wars plus a small-scale contingency. We've made that clear that in the event of a two major theater war scenario; all of our forces will be required.

Therefore, we will be required to withdraw these units from the Balkans in the event of such a scenario. To ensure their ability to redeploy quickly and meet this readiness concern, the Army, the European Command, the Joint Staff and the Office of Secretary of Defense have taken a series of steps:

First, we are building a detailed Redeployment Plan into our deliberate planning process. This, along with an Army-led training initiative, will speed up the time line required for retraining and redeployment so that units can get to the war fight more quickly.

Second, where necessary, other units will be substituted in our existing war plans for units deployed to the Balkans that would otherwise be required in the initial phases of a major conflict, so-called early-deployers.

Third, we are planning to use the Army National Guard units more frequently in the Balkans to free up active units to prepare for their principal wartime mission.

Fourth, the Army is modifying readiness reporting procedures to better reflect division readiness for units with dual missions, for small-scale contingencies and major theater war requirements.

Two Army Divisions overextended, overworked, under supplied by a President who didn't care.

23 MAR 2003 via YouTube posting of Code Pink meeting with Hillary Clinton:

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

Yes, another tyrant to be confronted and terrorism, again, rears its ugly head as sponsored by a Nation often against its own People.

War now - Hillary Clinton 10 JUL 2007 speech at Speech at the Temple for the Performing Arts in Des Moines:

This will be my first and most important mission as President -- one I believe I have the strength and experience to complete. Today, I want to lay out my three point plan for how I would achieve this -- how, as President, I would bring our troops home, work to bring stability to the region, and replace a military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq's future and America's national security interests.

What of running and causing a 'holocaust', Sen. Clinton? You did vote for this conflict. Of course you voted for Bosnia and Kosovo, too, by speaking with your husband on them.

Really there does need to be some enlightenment from you, Sen. Clinton, on why running from Iraq while they are still trying to get things up and running would *not* cause a holocaust. Or are you looking to be the author of the first holocaust of the 21st century?

Even worse is that quote you gave earlier: "This has been possible because our nations-our leaders and our citizens-stood up against evil."

Bringing a war torn Nation together because our leaders stand TOGETHER to do so after a war. A war that your husband never had bothered to get declared anywhere, for any 'peacekeeping' missions in places that were none too peaceful. While in a conflict that you helped to authorize, Sen. Clinton, you are now willing to show divisiveness and run from people who are uniting to get their country together and look to us for help. What gives with this, Sen. Clinton? All grand and glorious when little hell-holes of 'peacekeeping' turn out to be multi-year and over a decade, but when a large war, to take down a tyrant who refused to abide by agreements he made, that defied the international community as you well know, and authorized by Congress just might take more than six or seven years to sort out... why backing of one and not the other? And just where was your husband in assuring that the troops had proper rotation cycles during his overextension of them during PEACE TIME?

Hillary Clinton's most perfect wars: Bosnia and Kosovo. And let the military deteriorate as those perfect little wars are fought and un-won. Just how well are the Balkans doing these days? All constitutional democracies now? Regular free and fair elections going on all the time?

Finally, there is the problem of this question you posed to Gen. Patraeus, Sen. Clinton (via FNC Hannity & Colmes):

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.

As First Lady, and no doubt hearing some reports by Four Star Generals during your time in the White House, did you ever, once in your time there, need to have a 'willing suspension of disbelief' when they talked to your husband? What, in particular, makes you so sure that the entire Armed Forces has been so thoroughly corrupted over the last 6 or so years that you would EVER need to have a 'suspension of disbelief' when a Four Star General gives a report to Congress? And I am sure that a classified report is made available to Congress as background material. So what, in particular, do you doubt, Sen. Clinton?

Or are you pining for the day of that perfect little war of 'peacekeeping' in the Balkans that *still* hasn't come to any real sort of conclusion? Why can't we National Leadership that comes together on one of the foremost security questions of our times?

And why, Sen. Clinton, do you want to lead the charge to defeat and genocide? For that is what all of Congress will get tagged with if Iraq does not get together with our help. That is our responsibility after a war that Congress has put its stamp of approval on. You, talking to the Pinkies, said that the 'world community' is not to be trusted leading such things or running them. That includes the 'international community' as part of that.

Or are you just 'triangulating' with national security?

And leading us, as your husband did, to increasing terrorism that finally came to our shores?

You were part of that, remember?

How about living up to your own fine views on coming together as a National Leader, Sen. Clinton? Or is that beneath you, to just be a Senator of the United States living up to the commitments that you approved?

Sphere: Related Content

A day which shall live...

Sphere: Related Content

A different alternate history on terrorism

I do like it when public figures put out books on alternate history and then venture forth to offer 'alternative timelines' on things. Really! It's fun!

Latest is Newt Gingrich offering *his* alternate history on 'the war on terror', as reported on by David Freddoso at NRO. One of the great joys in my SF reading has been alt-history from H. Beam Piper's Paratime works (especially Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen, critical reading for alt-history buffs) and L. Sprague de Camp's Lest Darkness Fall to the more recent 1632 by Eric Flint and the Belisarius Series by David Drake and Eric Flint (starting with An Oblique Approach). It is one of the more robust genres in SF as it really doesn't need much in the way of actual science beyond a framework for the alternate history itself (Piper's is a multilayer universe and the Belisarius works are the 'artifacts through time travel' deal) which is glossy cover for the meat of the works, which is examining the social and societal forces moving human history. So when Newt Gingrich offers something up for right after 9/11 (which I dealt with in what should have been said directly after it with this post) I actually *do* know where he is coming from, just disagree with *when* the alt-history should start. I do believe that he chose an era when he was out of office so that he could do the compare/contrast bit, so that he wouldn't have to criticize himself or those that he admires greatly.

Because I am under no such restrictions, I would actually start a bit earlier than Mr. Gingrich. Back to a time when he was still new to office, but this is not a criticism of him, as such. No, I think the opening line of the speech by a President in this alternate history timeline will tell what needs to be said during what would, naturally, be a televised broadcast....

My fellow Americans, I come to you tonight to talk about the sorrow that has befallen our soldiers in Lebanon. As you know yesterday our mission to help stabilize the country of Lebanon, wracked by civil war, has resulted in the foul attack on our brave Marines there and an attack on our French Allies within seconds of it. Tonight we grieve for our lost sons and those of France, who had agreed to help us in bringing some order to the tiny Nation of Lebanon that had fallen into Civil War and was threatening the stability of the Middle East. I have been talking with Prime Minister Mitterand throughout the day and we are in agreement that this attack should not and cannot stand.

I have also consulted with General Secretary Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko and they both told me that that the Soviet Union had no part and wants no part of this attack, and they are as deeply disturbed by it as I am. They further offered us such Intelligence capabilities and information as is available there in order to help out Prime Minister Mitterand and myself to make determinations in this grave time that has befallen us. Our combined Intelligence operations, American, French, Soviet, and British, all point to a new organization that has done this. While those claiming this attack call it 'Islamic Jihad', our Intelligence points to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as the source of these attacks and the previous attack on our Embassy in Beirut. Further, the individual in charge of the direct operations is a man called Imad Mugniyah.

This organization and that man receive financial training and support from Iran and Syria, but their role in this is unclear. As you know the Iranian government has commited despicable acts upon our Embassy and staff in Tehran under my predecessor, and Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko both assure me that to the best of their knowledge, the Soviet Union had no role in that and they are likewise disturbed by that event. While we do have grave and deep differences with the Soviet Union on outlook for how to run our societies, between myself, Mitterand and Andropov with Chernenko, we are in common agreement that this horrific activity is a danger not just to those who lost soldiers or relatives, but is a danger to all Nations.

The Civil War that we had tried to quell for humanitarian purposes was stoked by these barbaric terrorists, who seek to put Lebanon under their sway and then to achieve dominance there to attack outwards. These are not soldiers, wearing uniforms and swearing allegiance to either Syria or Iran or even to Lebanon: they see themselves as the only law on Earth. The deaths before we landed the three of us are in complete agreement, belong to organizations like Hezbollah that have stoked the fires of hatred not to stand up a new Nation but to fulfill dreams of conquest there.

My fellow Americans, these are barbaric acts. I have also been in contact with Prime Minister Thatcher and we have held the first full talks between the World War II Allies on matters of war since the end of that conflict. We do have deep and abiding problems with the Soviet Union and how they act in opposition to us and their activities in Afghanistan. But we recognize that the nature of that is wholly different from this deadly and unwarranted act carried out by Hezbollah against us and France. As this terrorist organization has placed itself outside of the law, after deep and difficult talks with our old wartime Allies we agree that this organization is now a common outlaw of us and all civilized Nations.

Tonight we exercise, in concert and full agreement between us, that wherever any individual associated with Hezbollah is found, that they be brought in and tried as pirates under the law of nations. Our history as a Nation has been short but as one Nation amongst many, we abide by the deep concept of the law of nations, which calls those that do these acts by names we now consider fanciful. Our founders and other Nations before our founding had a different view and the names they gave described actions horrible to them.

As horrible as the unlawful slaughter of our servicemen by those not of any Nation are to us.

Because we, as a Nation, do agree with the law of nations, tonight I, Prime Minister Mitterand, Prime Minister Thatcher and Secretary General Andropov declare these actions to be outlaw by the law of nations and due all penalties associated with piracy. This is not piracy as we see in the movies, as I well know, but piracy that attacks Nations to destroy them. These barbaric acts are described as predatory or personal warfare and it is abhorrent to me as it is to you and all civilized peoples. Our Allies are in full agreement with me on this.

Tonight I, and our old wartime Allies, now allow for the summary finding of any member of Hezbollah by our armed forces to be that of pirates when found, so that we may rid ourselves of this scourge that has attacked us. I will be asking Congress for a war finding against Hezbollah, so that we may avenge ourselves on this enemy of mankind. Tomorrow, each of our Nations, France, Great Britain, Soviet Union and the United States, will take up these articles in their legislative bodies. I ask Congress to give me the power to bring this unlawful organization down along with any who support them. And to further amend the piracy statutes to cover unlawful warfare of all types.

My fellow Americans, I grieve and deeply with you this night, for our lost soldiers who were out to help end suffering in a far off land. They were murdered by those waging war on us. I will do everything in my power as Commander in Chief to go after these outlaws and put a stop to this once and for all. That is the duty handed me by the Constitution and I seek backing for it with Congress as this war may go more deeply than we can expect.

We did not ask for a war to be given to us.

I have been handed one and my duty is to fight for what is right for ourselves and all Nations. That is my job that I asked for and I will do it for you, for our honored dead and to ensure the justice of Nations is applied. I cannot refuse to have our Nation fight when it has been attacked in this foul manner, as well as the brave sons of France, murdered by these outlaws.

I thank you all for your time tonight on this grave matter of concern for all Americans.

May God Bless the United States in these troubled times.

I bid you good night.

There, now *that* is an alternate history for you.

We forget that the USSR sponsored those that put on uniforms, by and large, and were held accountable for their actions to an authority structure.

Unfortunately President Reagan did not give that speech, and so now we are where we are, and in much, much deeper danger with the spread of these predators across the globe. No President has given that speech or one like it.

And yet it is one that desperately needs to be given. Because when only one side shows up to fight a war there is only one description of the side that does not show up: defeated. We have been on *that* path far too long.

Sphere: Related Content

An SOS from David Ignatius and the Democratic Party

After reading the column by David Ignatius in the WaPo (09 SEP 2007), there is only one phrase that comes immediately to mind, and that from Gen. Honore during Katrina:

Stuck on Stupid.

There is much in the way of wishful thinking and much in the way of plain stupidity, not to mention good old fashioned ignorance that he has put out, so it is time to dispel some of that once and for all. Before going on, however, I will say that the fate of Iraq is more and more in the hands of Iraqis right where it should be. They have created a constitution, which we may criticize but it is for them to work their way with it. They have abided by the vote of the majority to accept that constitution, which is democracy at work. They have elected a common government, for good or ill, that is filled with newly minted POLITICIANS. And since they are newly minted they have no idea how to work this 'democracy' business, and are finding out that it is harder than a dictatorship! Yes, strong man rule is extremely easy - safeguarding freedom and liberty via democracy is like working in a slaughterhouse and making sausage and then getting to muck out the sewers to analyze the results. That is why it is the best system around: properly done it has input, process and feedback... maybe... someday... in America, too!

So first up: the vaunted troop reduction! Enough to give a Leftist shakes to think of a Republican President actually drawing down troops in a far off land. Be that as it may, do you know what will actually guide that decision? The folks putting their lives on the line as they report back day after day, week after week, and tell of the advances and difficulties seen on the ground. Right now things are going relatively well and the multiple insurgent organizations (al Qaeda in Iraq, Sadr's Mehdi Army, Iranian 'Secret Cells' and various criminal gangs) are getting put down, taken out or just hauled into the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. Rebuilding rates will also decide that, along with infrastructure projects. The Army Corps has an expected timeline for slowly replacing the entire electrical infrastructure of Iraq by 2012 with the majority of that paid by, yes, Iraqis. Those same insurgents may have figured out ways to thwart some security measures and stage a high level come-back. You never know with the billions of dollars Tehran has been throwing into terrorism. Time will tell.

Also, the second thing that will determine this? The Iraqi Army. Mr. Ignatius, further on, goes on to try and invalidate the Iraqi Army through the report that they will not be ready to take over things in 12-18 months at *least*. Do you know *why*? Whenever the amateurs talk tactics, like Mr. Ignatius, the professionals talk logistics, and it is that area that the Iraqi Army also needs to fully understand, comprehend, staff, train and pick up. This is an Army unready for fully autonomous work: it does not have the internal supply and logistics lines in place as of yet to fully work on their own.

Additionally their Officer Corps. does not have many individuals with a deep history of knowing how to run an Army well. They are getting some of the hardest, fastest, deadliest training on the planet that is killing them off at a high ratio compared to their US counterparts. What gets left, however, is a veteran, battle-hardened force that is no-nonsense and understands their job. As Iraqis learn to plough that into their training capability this makes the force self-sustaining and builds a competent Officer Corps. The metric for this is: how good is their Non-Commissioned Officer Corps? I examined the problems of creating an army before and that outlook still holds true. The type of question that one can ask on the Iraqi Army's progress is: How well are they doing at generating up a new Officer Corps that understands the nature of the force compared to the US drawdown once the draft was removed? It took the US, arguably, 15 years to recover from the draft and also change the structure and outlook of its forces. Those forces failed to even begin staging a hostage rescue attempt in 1979, and yet, by 1991, was fully ready to take to the field in Iraq.

So the Iraqi Army might take 12-18 months *more* to become autonomous enough to finally get its own supply systems down? This is a problem?

On the question of the integration of the Iraqi Army, I will point over to Michael Yon in Bless the Beasts and Children, Pt. 2. The IA 5ID is a trustworthy division, and I have heard similar of others, particularly 2ID. These are fully integrated units as the soldiers will attest to on the ground: Arabs, Kurds, Sunni, Shia, Yezidi, Turkomen, Assyrians... they are all IRAQIS FIRST. They have seen the slaughter of the innocents done by the insurgent terrorists, their units have been shifted around to give them a good taste of each of the insurgents, and 5ID was one of the first to stand up and these men are veterans who have seen what the killers in Iraq *do* to their children. THEIR CHILDREN.

Talking in lovely tones of 'soft separation', which Mr. Ignatius goes onto do, pointing to the vaunted wisdom of plagiarist Sen. Biden, is a paternal way of saying: 'You Iraqis don't really belong together.' Good job! Sounding colonialist, paternalistic and 'realistic' all at the same time! Just the sort of person that Osama bin Laden really rails against.

Instead the Iraqis have finally learned that the killers from outside allying with the ex-Ba'athist thugs and criminal elements actually *do* mean to kill or enslave Iraqis. So when he comes up with this lovely line, I really begin to wonder just which Iraq Mr. Ignatius is talking about:

If we agree with Petraeus that the tribal sheiks in Anbar and their U.S.-armed militias are the best hope in combating al-Qaeda, we have to accept that this will undermine the aspiration of training a national army that can unite Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Regional solutions, in the short run, are the enemy of national ones.

Do you mean that if I find a good way to ensure children get taught locally that I have slowed up the teaching of children across the Nation?

Do you mean that if my town has a township police force that it has automatically invalidated the FBI?

Do you mean that if my State has a police force that it has automatically made supporting a National Army impossible?

Has Mr. Ignatius ever heard of the word: federalism? Because, apparently, he has no idea of the meaning of 'local government'. The fact is that thousands of Iraqis from Anbar have been signing up for: the Iraqi Army, local police and neighborhood watches. This does not sound like a set of folks wanting a 'soft partition' of Iraq. In fact it sounds like Mr. Ignatius is looking to some 'realism' in foreign policy, which I addressed in this article about the end of the Unreal 'Realists' and I will pick up just after listing all the known tribes of Iraq:

And as one may have noticed these tribes are geographically dispersed with sections and sub-sections all over the map, so to speak and that trying to find a way to 'Divide Iraq' has about as much chance as 'dividing a fruitcake into nuts, dough and fruit after it has been mixed and baked'. Further if one wishes to know a bit more about this wondrous 'Parting of the Tribes' based on ethnicity one can see from this map of genealogy that things are not that simple.

While one can discern some things that might lead an individual in one direction of thought, note that this is basic GENEALOGY, not permanent HOMELAND. And since the shortened listing will not really fit well into something short of 1m resolution imagery for all of Iraq, a simplified view of the major tribes may help, but realize that the actual boundaries of the tribes are like an actual boundary of a SNEEZE.

And then, after these Great and Wise Thinkers of All Wars Chilly put their Awesome Powers of Insight into this Matter, then perhaps the Rest of Us can leave them while They Take Tea and mull this over. Because an Iraq that is *not* Federal and that has *no* commonality of Government will Fly Apart and make the Balkans look like a Minor Familial Feud in the Appalachians. A mere Hatfields and McCoys compared to what will happen in Iraq. A failed Nation State scenario winds up with NO NATION there and the entirety of the Tribal System or lack of same holding full and absolute force as the only cohesive force LEFT if a Government fails. And as this is something that Iran and al Qaeda are set up to take full advantage of, they will DO SO. The Grand Road to Islamic Empire will be STARTED because the US was unwilling to tough out a minor back alley brawl or two, and would run out on its friends.

Realpolitik in running from Viet Nam got the World millions dead in South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos all due to the fact that such an ongoing fight wasn't seen as 'worth it' to the American People. It is the great thinkers like those of Realpolitik that let the USSR go into Afghanistan because they had so denuded the Nation of ability that it could NOT block them. You may remember Afghanistan as it served as an incubator for the next great threat to Freedom, Liberty and Nations.

It helped CREATE a Non-Nation State Actor that cannot be directly gotten by the Great Wisdom of all of Realpolitik. If they could not stop al Qaeda from forming nor find a way to fight it THEN and that encouraged it to grow, what makes anyone think that running from Iraq will come to ANY GOOD END AT ALL?

Because these are the exact, self-same bozos that got us INTO THIS MESS and they have ZERO idea of how to clean it up.

Yes, that *includes* Sen. Biden. And, apparently, a good swath of the Democratic Party at this point, that cannot put partisan politics aside and do any analysis of Iraq and, instead, rely upon old tropes and wisdom passed down from the 'Realists'. Because they are offering the simplistic solution, that is glib and quick to pass the lips... not the simple one of building society, democracy and helping those trodden under tyrannical rule to stand up on their own and then decide for THEMSELVES what to do. That will take some time.

It has been going over 60 years to get all the troops out of Japan and we *still* to this day have troops INSIDE Germany. And South Korea. And quite some few other places for long periods of time. Once we have finally helped to drive the killers out, helped to stand up an Army and also Air Force and brown water Navy, and given what aid is asked for to help get things running in Iraq at a level that Iraqis find acceptable, then we will, indeed, not be needed. Once they can control their own borders they will actually be ahead of the US on that score. If you want to see some real basket cases, look at Germany, still whimpering whenever we make any noises of relocating bases. Tell you what, lets pull out of Germany, free up our armed forces, give a longer rotation cycle to our troops and slowly get fresh troops into combat so they can understand what fighting terrorism is all about.

Someone has to do it. And I expect that the General and Ambassador will point the way forward from where we are to goals of a free Iraq able to make her own way in the world.

Congress is only barely holding on to supporting the Nation, at this point.

And not looking to find a way forward to success of liberty, freedom and democracy in what the Nation does is betrayal. We cannot run from this fight, not in Iraq nor anyplace. When America runs from her fights, liberty LOSES and tyranny WINS. Our political class used to understand that America is united in its stance overseas in foreign policy. That was true from the founding until the 1960's, and without it we now find ourselves in deadly danger of losing the meaning of both liberty and freedom. That was the fight handed to us by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Paine... the Revolution did not end with the ending of the fighting then. I will not betray those who created this Nation by walking away from their views on mankind and the US.
Let us hope our clueless and incapable political class can remember that above mere partisanship.

Sphere: Related Content

The killers ask for a better chance to kill

From the 23 FEB 1998 al Qaeda release Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders - World Islamic Front Statement (FAS document archives):

Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

Why intro with this? Simply, it is a statement from al Qaeda before the 07 AUG 1998 Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings by al Qaeda. However it has an interest beyond that because the tone of it is highly assertive and confrontational. The selections used by al Qaeda to characterize their upcoming acts is one that looks to gain the favor of Allah by citation and by affiliation to seek to put forth justifications for the organization's activities.

This is much better then the extremely lengthy and run-on fatwa issued by stirring up the conflict in Kosovo by helping the KLA, as seen by the Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence Directorate in Interpol in 2000(via GlobalSecurity document cache):

There might still be links between political/military Kosovar Albanian groups (especially the KLA) and Albanian organized crime. Of the almost 900 million DM which reached Kosovo between 1996 and 1999, half was thought to be illegal drug money. Legitimate fundraising activities for the Kosovo and the KLA could have been be used to launder drug money. In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Djihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. In 1998, the KLA was described as a key player in the drugs for arms business in 1998, "helping to transport 2 billion USD worth of drugs annually into Western Europe". The KLA and other Albanian groups seem to utilize a sophisticated network of accounts and companies to process funds. In 1998, Germany froze two bank accounts belonging to the "United Kosova" organization after it had been discovered that several hundred thousand dollars had been deposited into those accounts by a convicted Kosovar Albanian drug trafficker.

Somehow a rich man complaining about how other rich folks exploit folks while doing his own exploiting for his own reasons seems more than a bit disingenuous. Still, bin Laden's tone is very aggressive and confrontational, putting forth 'facts' but not telling of his role in any of them. Even worse, of course, is that arms were, indeed, being run to the region by, yes, Monzer al-Kassar and Jean-Bernard Lasnaud (aka. Francois Lasnosky). Gun running from Argentina and Poland to the conflict was done not only by sea but by overland by these two, and I assume others took part in the free-for-all atmosphere, beyond al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Argentina.. and bin Laden would have direct knowledge of this via his operatives there. The UN 'embargo' was one in name only, and actual prohibition of arms seems to have been a deader than doornail concept on the ground.

This framework, however, gives a progressive view of al Qaeda - starting out with a laundry list of grievances against the US, the West, and, basically, everyone who isn't a follower of bin Laden's particular type of Islam. Then the confrontational stance for self-justification before two high profile attacks: this was an organization on the move and to be respected! Which brings us to the latest missive from bin Laden and al Qaeda(document via Counterterrorism blog) and its opening paragraph:

All praise is due to Allah, who built the heavens and earth in justice, and created man as a favor and grace from Him. And from His ways is that the days rotate between the people, and from His Law is retaliation in kind: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the killer is killed. And all praise is due to Allah, who awakened His slaves' desire for the Garden, and all of them will enter it except those who refuse. And whoever obeys Him alone in all of his affairs will enter the Garden, and whoever disobeys Him will have refused.

Gone are the grievances. So to is the aggressive language and self-justification. No more of the greatness - ' I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped...' or 'It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators;'

Why, its almost like something has taken the wind out of the sails, here. It is a very, yes, passive voice that bin Laden uses to introduce this speech. Now he speaks of 'tooth for a tooth' so the whole world will have dentures, no doubt. He is not speaking as the active adherent, the one bringing to light the oppressiveness of the world against Muslims. Those words at the start are missing completely and what replaces it is something that is far, far worse for him: he is in a 'kill or be killed' scenario of his own devising and he is not winning. What happened?

Somalia.

Take a look at Ayman al-Zawahiri's speech on 05 JAN 2007 (via BBC) and one sees the previous, fervent language, again:

My Muslim brothers in Somalia: Do not be terrified by America's power as you have defeated it before, thanks to God and His grace.

Today, America is weaker than before as the mujahideen dealt a fatal blow to it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence, it sent its slaves to you. Therefore, do not be affected by the first shock, it is just worthless propaganda, arrogance, and haughtiness. The real battle will begin by launching your campaigns against the Ethiopian forces with God's help and might.

al Qaeda, to put it bluntly, got its clock cleaned in Somalia. Not by the mighty United States or Great Britain or Israel. Nope. Who are the great world beaters, mightier than these great, industrialized Nations that handed a hard drubbing to al Qaeda and its followers?

Ethiopia.

Eight months later and here comes Osama bin Laden with this lengthy diatribe, no doubt full of 'hidden meanings', but the unthinkable has happened. The once mighty warriors who defeated the Soviet Union got shoved around by Ethiopia. The US did have some ships and air power, there, but mostly for observation and deterrent effect... a bit of shelling on a camp site or two. The hard ground work to clear the Islamic Courts out was delivered by Ethiopia and a couple of Somali warlords.

How the mighty have fallen, huh?

Don't believe it? Ok, lets take a look a bit further on in the 1996 bin Laden fatwa:

By orders from the USA they also arrested a large number of scholars, Da'ees and young people - in the land of the two Holy Places- among them the prominent Sheikh Salman Al-Oud'a and Sheikh Safar Al-Hawali and their brothers; (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah"). We, myself and my group, have suffered some of this injustice ourselves; we have been prevented from addressing the Muslims. We have been pursued in Pakistan, Sudan and Afghanistan, hence this long absence on my part. But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindukush mountains in Khurasan ; where--by the Grace of Allah-the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the super power was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greater). Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that had been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist-Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the journey of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) and the land of the two Holy Places. We ask Allah to bestow us with victory, He is our Patron and He is the Most Capable.

This was during that period in Afghanistan where the Taliban were marching forward and taking town after town and, indeed, looked to have the ability to take the entire Nation. Osama is *boasting* that his brand of Islam is on the march via the Taliban and that the start of the glorious changes brought by Allah would begin.

Even before that, a French journalist reported on this in 1995, thanks to Legal Services of India for the document:

April 1995
In a never-published interview with a French journalist, Osama bin Laden says that his decision to fight alongside Afghan mujahedeen dated from "the time when the Americans decided to help the Afghans fight the Russians."

"To counter these atheist Russians, the Saudis chose me as their representative in Afghanistan... I did not fight against the communist threat while forgetting the peril from the West."

"For us, the idea was not to get involved more than necessary in the fight against the Russians, which was the business of the Americans, but rather to show our solidarity with our Islamist brothers. I discovered that it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had to fight on all fronts against communist or Western oppression. The urgent thing was communism, but the next target was America... This is an open war up to the end, until victory."

A war by bin Laden against America, and he would carry that concept out. This is before victories against the Afghan regime, before Kenya and Tanzania but AFTER the 1993 WTC attacks in which al Qaeda played a role, although not a central one.

To carry that war out the 1998 message had this lovely passage:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

That's right, its a sanction to kill any American or its allies, any time, any where. One does not say *that* about any Nation unless you really do expect to carry it out. By this time he had helped the Afghans to thwart the USSR, helped the Taliban to gain power and was, even then, plotting to kill more Americans. Allah, from this viewpoint, had pointed a clear direction even provided the perfect template to carry out successful attacks. What more could a guy want, huh? Well, something to beat Ethiopia with, is my guess...

How does he talk about the US today? Well, this gives us something of a clue:

To preface, I say: despite America being the greatest economic power and possessing the most powerful and up-to-date military arsenal as well; and despite it spending on this war and is army more than the entire world spends on its armies; and despite it being the being the major state influencing the policies of the world, as if it has a monopoly on the unjust right of veto; despite all of this, 19 young men were able - by the grace of Allah, the Most High- to change the direction of its compass. And in fact, the subject of the Mujahideen has become an inseparable part of the speech of your leader, and the effects and signs of that are not hidden.

In one of the most interesting views of the US as, previously, bin Laden had discounted, almost entirely, the economic might of the US. From an interview of Osama bin Laden by ABC reporter John Miller MAY 1998 (document courtesy Legal Services of India):

Bin Laden believes that the United States, which was so heavily involved in supporting the Afghan rebels, misses the profound point of that exercise: Through sheer will, even superpowers can be defeated.

"There is a lesson to learn from this for he who wishes to learn," he said. "The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan in the last week of 1979, and with Allah's help their flag was folded a few years later and thrown in the trash, and there was nothing left to call the Soviet Union."

The war changed bin Laden. "It cleared from Muslim minds the myth of superpowers," he said. He was blooded, a hero among militant Muslims, with perhaps three thousand men waiting to follow him. But follow him where, into what battle? Many of these men had not been home for years. By then, fighting was all some of them knew. And there were huge stockpiles of weapons and grenades and rocket launchers, many of them bought for the mujahideen rebels by the CIA.

Indeed all the economic might of the USSR didn't do them much good in Afghanistan, but then that is not a place to fight the kind of war that the USSR fought, either. It is ironic to think that a wealthy son of a Saudi family would put forward that the strength of superpowers are a 'myth'. While one might be amazed at a stockpile of RPGs and AK-47's, those are relatively cheap, arms-wise, so much so they are the 'loss leaders' of the large independent arms merchants. The USSR had forgotten the lessons of World War II and Korea, for that matter, about mountain warfare, which is the domain of small and competent forces, not huge armies. The victory of a 'David' over a 'Goliath' is not assured in such conditions, but when poor Goliath can't even breathe well and David is doing calisthenics, you would think some institutional memory would come back to them. Afghanistan is not a place where money buys armies, but is a place where small bands of men can hold out nearly forever, even in the modern environment of warfare, with very little more than small arms and mobility. bin Laden thought he had seen the myth of 'money buying power' evaporate, while what he saw was the enactment of the ages old fights in mountains, the last holdfast of the desperate and the best place to attack the strong.

Iraq, and most of the Middle East, however, are a different story, and where troops can maneuver freely and easily money for logistics is paramount. A change in view comes, however, when he sees others profiting from the Middle East, particularly oil sales. The 1996 fatwa obviously saw something a bit different, but with a victory finally under his belt, bin Laden would change his tune in only a year. From the list of grievances that bin Laden feels against the US and its allies we get this:

Under such circumstances, to push the enemy-the greatest Kufr- out of the country is a prime duty. No other duty after Belief is more important than the duty of had . Utmost effort should be made to prepare and instigate the Ummah against the enemy, the American-Israeli alliance- occupying the country of the two Holy Places and the route of the Apostle (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) to the Furthest Mosque (Al-Aqsa Mosque). Also to remind the Muslims not to be engaged in an internal war among themselves, as that will have grieve consequences namely:

1-consumption of the Muslims human resources as most casualties and fatalities will be among the Muslims people.

2-Exhaustion of the economic and financial resources.

3-Destruction of the country infrastructures

4-Dissociation of the society

5-Destruction of the oil industries. The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world. The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and push them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land; therefore spread of the fighting in the region will expose the oil wealth to the danger of being burned up. The economic interests of the States of the Gulf and the land of the two Holy Places will be damaged and even a greater damage will be caused to the economy of the world. I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. We also warn the aggressors, the USA, against burning this Islamic wealth (a crime which they may commit in order to prevent it, at the end of the war, from falling in the hands of its legitimate owners and to cause economic damages to the competitors of the USA in Europe or the Far East, particularly Japan which is the major consumer of the oil of the region).

6-Division of the land of the two Holy Places, and annexing of the northerly part of it by Israel. Dividing the land of the two Holy Places is an essential demand of the Zionist-Crusader alliance. The existence of such a large country with its huge resources under the leadership of the forthcoming Islamic State, by Allah's Grace, represent a serious danger to the very existence of the Zionist state in Palestine. The Nobel Ka'ba, -the Qiblah of all Muslims- makes the land of the two Holy Places a symbol for the unity of the Islamic world. Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world. The sons of the two Holy Places are directly related to the life style (Seerah) of their forefathers, the companions, may Allah be pleased with them. They consider the Seerah of their forefathers as a source and an example for re-establishing the greatness of this Ummah and to raise the word of Allah again. Furthermore the presence of a population of fighters in the south of Yemen, fighting in the cause of Allah, is a strategic threat to the Zionist-Crusader alliance in the area. The Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) said: (around twelve thousands will emerge from Aden/Abian helping -the cause of- Allah and His messenger, they are the best, in the time, between me and them) narrated by Ahmad with a correct trustworthy reference.

7-An internal war is a great mistake, no matter what reasons are there for it. the presence of the occupier-the USA- forces will control the outcome of the battle for the benefit of the international Kufr.

There are two absolutely lovely passages that will come back to haunt bin Laden. The first is his edict NOT to go after the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia, which was *after* the al Qaeda attack on the OPM-SANG complex there. It is a very difficult thing to persuade other Nations that has Nationals there helping Saudi Arabia both for its armed forces and for its oil processing that you really aren't going out to kill them... when, of course, you do. But the other is even more interesting not just for Saudi Arabia, but for the Middle East as a whole, and that is the last one. It is a clear and distinct recognition that if Muslim turns on Muslim in Saudi Arabia, but anywhere, really, that it will not be al Qaeda on the winning side but the wealthy US. Clearly Osama did not understand the depth of his words or he would never have allowed the bucher Zarqawi to live, not to speak of giving him a high place in the scheme of things in Iraq.

This is called: Hubris.

And the pride of bin Laden in his ideals is evident that he actually does not believe that #7 is true for the US, because of the actions that have been taken. Again from the 1996 fatwa:

Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

I say to Secretary of Defence: The sons of the land of the two Holy Places had come out to fight against the Russian in Afghanistan, the Serb in Bosnia-Herzegovina and today they are fighting in Chechenia and -by the Permission of Allah- they have been made victorious over your partner, the Russians. By the command of Allah, they are also fighting in Tajakistan.

This is the famous listing of places that America was hit and did not RESPOND to Muslim aggression. In Iraq, however, we now get a different view of the US, and it is not one of the Mujahideen chasing the 'Zionist-Crusaders' out or any such thing. In fact being able to actually chase the US forces out is something of a sore point as it goes unmentioned by bin Laden. Very strange, that. But he still threatens pretty well, that hasn't changed with the latest missive:

If they leave their barracks, the mines devour them, and if they refuse to leave, rulings are passed against them. Thus, the only options left in front of them are to commit suicide or cry, both of which are from the severest of afflictions. So is there anything more men can do after crying and killing themselves to make you respond to them? They are doing that out of the severity of the humiliation, fear and terror which they are suffering. It is severer than what the slaves used to suffer at your hands centuries ago, and it is as if some of them have gone from one slavery to another slavery more severe and harmful, even if it be in the fancy dress of the Defense Department's financial enticements.

Mines devouring people? Where are the brave mujahideen? Financial enticements? What *has* this man been smoking? The US is infamous in paying its soldiers inadequately and has for decades. 'Financial enticements'? What, the college fund deal? Say, does it pay for schooling already done, as we sure do have quite a few lettered men and women in the Armed Forces these days! Education is actually HIGHER than the average for America. And, even worse, they Volunteer for the job! Yes, average Americans actually will VOLUNTEER for low pay, poor working conditions and a physical fitness schedule that makes pro football look like cakewalk.

If the US is so weak, why cannot these brave followers of bin Laden do such a simple thing, like was done before and just kill a few soldiers and drive us out?

Why is it that the ones being chased from Somalia NOW are the Islamic Courts?

The message of mountain warfare and his own edict #7, applied more generally, are things he should have thought about a bit more. He even described the terrain of Arabia, and while its a bit more rugged in the north of Iraq, he does a good job of describing things, as seen in the 1998 release:

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

Yes, flat. Not at all a mountain environment. This is not the land where a few brave individuals can hold out indefinitely against an army: this is the sort of land where large armed forces must needs be dealt with by similar forces. Something al Qaeda lacks. Apparently Osama bin Laden isn't much of a military historian, for which we should be extremely thankful.

So what is the position of this latest missive from Osama? Well, beyond the fact it probably pre-sages yet another terror attack of some scope, it does not read like those tracts and fatwas of years past: this is not an organization that is seeing continued success or even the ability to hold its own. This is not the boastful and triumphant bin Laden telling of the great deeds already done and more to come. The threats are still there, but key ingredients are missing. Even worse, for him, is that he now has to try and convince us that we have LOST. This is not the missive of someone winning, as those are abrupt and straight to the point of 'get out or else I'll kill you'. No, this is begging for Americans to listen to their whining 'intellectual elites' who can't tell the difference between the law of nations and the theory of linguistic uncertainty.

Begging? Yes, and here are a few select quotes to get the tone of it, with some previous quotes to get an idea of how bin Laden sees things. Lets take the media as an example from the latest:

And for your information media, during the first years of the war, lost its credibility and manifested itself as a tool of the colonialist empires, and its condition has often been worse than the condition of the media of the dictatorial regimes which march in the caravan of the single leader.

As if! 'Tool of the colonialist empires'? Right out of the 1950's, that. This one is particularly rich as he has been going on about it since at least 1996:

(3) The state of the press and the media which became a tool of truth-hiding and misinformation; the media carried out the plan of the enemy of idolising cult of certain personalities and spreading scandals among the believers to repel the people away from their religion, as Allah, the Exalted said: {surely- as for- those who love that scandal should circulate between the believers, they shall have a grievous chastisement in this world and in the here after} (An-Noor, 24:19).

Yet another list of grievances he feels out of that lengthy fatwa. Almost the same quote, too. Mind you the guy has gotten some of the most lenient views from the Leftists that any mass murderer has gotten since Che Guevara, so wanting *more* sympathy from the press is really asking for something more akin to the Soviet style press.

Next up the already benighted UN from his latest:

So these are some of the results of the freedom about whose spreading he is talking to you. And then the backtracking of Bush on his insistence on not giving the United Nations expanded jurisdiction in Iraq is an implicit admission of his loss and defeat there.

Say, just how well *is* Kosovo doing these days? Gots a great old constitution and elected officials up and down the line yet? Because nothing spells defeat like the letters U and N. Of course I've already cited his 1996 fatwa for the 'iniquitous' UN, so that gets his feel for the organization to say the least.

How about the Democratic Party? Now venturing into US politics is something that bin Laden hasn't done that much of, lately, but this diatribe is chock-a-block with politics. So here is his take on the Democratic Party:

People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there, which has led to the vast majority of you being afflicted with disappointment.

Heh. The Democratic Party cannot even do the few things they ran on last year which WASN'T to end the war, in case folks have forgotten. As to them 'agreeing to spend tens of billions to continue the killing war', perhaps bin Laden hasn't seen the level of PORK spending going on. When you have billions upon billions in pork in the budget, the actual concept of the war costing much of anything is betrayed by the ready expenditures of money for personal greed and rewards to favorites. If America was cash strapped there would be ZERO pork cash available. That also takes care of the American economy in ruins elsewhere in the diatribe. Bad economy gets you no pork. This economy has expanded at a good clip, year on year with the spending for the war, so bin Laden really does have to get a basic math course under his belt.

Then Osama bin Laden tries his hand at re-writing history:

This war was entirely unnecessary, as testified to by your own reports. And among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you on this topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't like those who give advice. The entire world came out in unprecedented demonstrations to warn against waging the war and describe its true nature in eloquent terms like "no to spilling red blood for black oil," yet he paid them no heed. It is time for humankind to know that talk of the rights of man and freedom are lies produced by the White House and its allies in Europe to deceive humans, take control of their destinies and subjugate them.

Damned straight this war is unnecessary! Why the hell did you decide to wage personal, predatory war on the US its Allies and the world? Yeah, you really have to admire a linguist who knows beans about the law of nations and pontificates a the drop of a hat warning about every evil under the sun that America might ever do. Ditto for the Leftists who just can't bear thinking about a capitalist Nation actually being successful and defending herself from a human predator using religious excuses to wage his personal war against humanity.

The law of nations under which the US and all other Nations exists has a term for Osama bin Laden and, indeed, all 'terrorists': hostis humani generis - enemy of mankind.

Yes, there is actually a conceptual framework that describes this and it is, indeed, called the law of nations which is cited by the US Code and some few other places in the founding of this Nation. It is how we expect the system of nation states to work, and one good reference cited in Supreme Court cases is Monsieur De Vattel's Law of Nations, and this from Book 2, Chapter IV:

WE have seen in the preceding chapters what are the common duties of nations towards each other, — how they ought mutually to respect each other, and to abstain from all injury and all offence, — and how justice and equity ought to reign between them in their whole conduct. But hitherto we have only considered the actions of the body of the nation, of the state, of the sovereign. Private persons who are members of one nation, may offend and ill-treat the citizens of another, and may injure a foreign sovereign: — it remains for us to examine what share a state may have in the actions other citizens, and what are the rights and obligations of sovereigns in this respect.

Whoever offends the state, injures its rights, disturbs its tranquillity, or does it a prejudice in any manner whatsoever, declares himself its enemy, and exposes himself to be justly punished for it. Whoever uses a citizen ill, indirectly offends the state, which is bound to protect this citizen; and the sovereign of the latter should avenge his wrongs, punish the aggressor, and, if possible, oblige him to make full reparation; since otherwise the citizen would not obtain the great end of the civil association, which is, safety.

Osama bin Laden, by ill-treating citizens of other Nations and being held unaccountable and, indeed, declaring enmity, makes himself an aggressor. He threatens the safety of the Nation. In Book 3, Chapter 3 we see what the Just Causes for War *are*:

The right of employing force, or making war, belongs to nations no farther than is necessary for their own defence, and for the maintenance of their rights (§ 3). Now, if any one attacks a nation, or violates her perfect rights, he does her an injury. Then, and not till then, that nation has a right to repel the aggressor, and reduce him to reason. Further, she has a right to prevent the intended injury, when she sees herself threatened with it (Book II. § 50). Let us then say in general, that the foundation, or cause of every just war is injury, either already done or threatened. The justificatory reasons for war show that an injury has been received, or so far threatened as to authorize a prevention of it by arms. It is evident, however, that here the question regards the principal in the war, and not those who join in it as auxiliaries. When, therefore, we would judge whether a war be just, we must consider whether he who undertakes it has in fact received an injury, or whether he be really threatened with one. And, in order to determine what is to be considered as an injury, we must be acquainted with a nation's rights, properly so called, — that is to say, her perfect rights. These are of various kinds, and very numerous, but may all be referred to the general heads of which we have already treated, and shall further treat in the course of this work. Whatever strikes at these rights is an injury, and a just cause of war.

And in Chapter I we see that only Nations may do this:

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.1 Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

Everything that Osama bin Laden puts down as a grievance gives him no cause to go to war. Indeed, his actions against the US and other Nations gives rise for for just war against *him*. In Chapter IV we see this difference between lawful and unlawful war:

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.5 Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

Yes, 'predatory expeditions'. That sounds a LOT like 'terrorism' to me. Osama bin Laden is trying to tear out Western civilization and the system of Nation states by its roots by what he does, and his joining in others doing the same. Vattel would look at this in the following:

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.6 Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,7 caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war.

Yes, those that wage informal war are waging depredation: they are predators of mankind. Killers. They place themselves outside the law of nations and seek to overthrow them all so that they may rule solely by force. All of these things that Osama cites are excuses to wage war upon the innocent and weak, not justification for such activities. Indeed, such activities cannot be justified by individuals as warfare is the sole realm of the sovereign nation. Even in our fine era where we can't even say 'law of nations' without getting hives, terrorists can't even be given refuge under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as they have violated what each individual must do to fall within its bounds:

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Yes, all the lovely whining about 'freedom fighters' and any sort of justification for this sort of personal, predatory warfare falls flat on its face.

Osama bin Laden and all of his followers and, indeed, all terrorists, have placed themselves outside of ANY LAW. They are Outlaws by their actions and their announcements that THEY are the law and THEY will wage war.

Enemies of mankind.

Perhaps we can wake up and actually defend the system of laws from such Outlaws *before* they so demean it that it protects no one. And Osama is just begging for that chance.

To destroy mankind and change it to his liking. And his organization feels just the same, so even with him gone, the noxious view remains.

Sphere: Related Content

America - out of touch with democracy

From StrategyPage's The Facts On The Ground In Iraq:

"September 5, 2007: The major problem in Iraq is back in the United States. There, many politicians either don't bother, or don't want to believe, what is actually happening, and has happened, in Iraq. In a way, that makes sense. Because what is going on in Iraq is so totally alien to the experience of American politicians. Moreover, many Americans take a purely partisan, party line, attitude towards Iraq. So logic and fact has nothing to do with their assessments of the situation.

[..]

Which brings up another major issue in Iraq. Many Iraqis believe only a dictator can run the country, and force all the factions to behave. However, a majority of Iraqis recognize that dictatorships tend to be poor and repressive, while democracies are prosperous and pleasant. The problem is that the traditions of tribalism and corruption (everything, and everyone, has their price) do not mesh well with democracy. This doesn't mean democracy can't work under these conditions, many do. It does mean that it takes more effort, and the results are not neat and clean, as Americans expect their democracies to be."

Bolding is mine, of course.

Now isn't that a fine thing for Americans to believe?

What on earth leads Americans to believe that democracy, of ALL systems, will be 'neat and clean'?

Really, just what sort of imbecilic fantasy is this, that expects a majority rule system with frequent elections to be 'neat and clean'? It is the absolutely, number one system of MESS! It is very, very messy on purpose - to expose the thoughts of the People to each other so that they may be considered for use by the entire Nation. I mean look at the 1913 Webster's courtesy of die.net:

democracy

n 1: the political orientation of those who favor government by
the people or by their elected representatives

2: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body
of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: republic,
commonwealth] [ant: autocracy]

3: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized
group can make decisions binding on the whole group [syn:
majority rule]

I don't see 'neat' or 'tidy' or 'clean' or even 'easy' mentioned in there. If Americans actually believe that democracy is 'neat' or 'clean', then we have lost the meaning of what democracy actually *is*. How the hell can we expect people to understand that democracy is meant to allow for representation of a vast sea of viewpoints on governing and running a Nation if we don't actually accept that such a process is not 'neat' or 'clean'?

What an example?

How about the 'abortion debate'? That has been such an unclean fight between two partisan factions that they have forgotten what 'neutral ground' means. There is NONE in that fight, that has gotten so rancorous over the exact *wrong* thing that people no longer even believe that there can be ANY other viable viewpoint there. And you know how that gets reflected in this lovely 'neat' and 'clean' system that is supposed to allow for a wide variety of viewpoints across a spectrum to be heard? Yeah, its been shut down with any other viewpoint closed OUT by the two venomous sides that no longer even believe in the thing that makes democracy work: compromise. And how do I know that there is NO other view accepted?

Ever get one of those lovely groups polling for one side or the other in this 'debate'? Want to freak them out? Do as I do and say I am not for or against either side, and hold a view separate to both. Which, luckily, I do. You will get hung-up by the person doing said polling. You do not fit in a 'niche' predefined by the 'two sides'. You are positing a way forward for democracy to allow the process of the Nation to slowly work things through and let the rule of law take its course along with the input of the States and the People in them.

That is democracy.

NOT polarizing a debate on the National level, but by working it out on the local level until until a more common view can be held by the majority. One that ensures that both extremes get no victory nor no defeat, but that the process of society continues unabated.

Want another? How about 'terrorists' during wartime? Do you handle them with military means or purely civil means?

Want the answer?

BOTH.

As the President as Commander in Chief, Head of State, Head of Government and, thus Chief Law Enforcement Officer, the US Armed Forces can be directed on exactly HOW to treat those CAPTURED by the US Armed Forces on the battlefield or while being a threat to operations. Do you know the first President to put out such rules for the Army? That described *exactly* what terrorists DO and how the military should treat them? It was done... by Abraham Lincoln.

Want to know something?

That rule violates no TREATY signed by the US nor any law passed by Congress because it REFUSES to pass law in this area to this very day. When the poor Field Manual got revised at the end of the 19th century, the poor rule went to the floor because, I would hazard a guess, no one fought like that anymore. Sounds about right for the high water mark of civilization.

Now, do you know that there is a Civil Side to this? Congress has, in actuality, put into law how to deal with a SUB-CLASS of terrorism! Even put a life sentence on it! But they didn't call it that because it was one of the last forms to be a real threat to multiple Nations simultaneously, and was done for the money involved. It is called PIRACY. And as the logic goes: All Pirates are terrorists, but not all terrorists are Pirates. Got that?

Yeah, I'm not too impressed with the Congress for not doing something about this, say, 25 years ago when they could have gotten a very good set of laws passed that were easy, simple and well defined.

Do you know why it didn't happen? Because it might involve the use of the military to defend us!
And why didn't Congress add this to the UCMJ? Because the President ALREADY HAS THE POWER TO DEAL WITH IT.

But that might get a few folks thrown in jail for life by doing that who don't deserve it!

You know the court that those could APPEAL TO? The US Supreme Court. And so long as the individual was caught on the battlefield without a uniform and adhering to no Army under no Nation do you know what? They get to rot in jail for being idiots if they weren't a 'terrorist', because they refused to BE a CIVILIAN. That just might stop up things at the SCOTUS... well, the rest of their comrades in robes have that problem at lower levels, who said that they should be immune from actually having a 'full case load'?

And then, under the cited law of nations that Congress passed as part of the Piracy laws, it can very well pass a similar set of laws saying anyone brought in performing the activity of predatory warfare without sanction is an outlaw or pirate, and get life in jail. Yes it is just that simple! Uses the exact same idea as the first piracy statue, only with more words. I'm sure someone could trim it by a few.


How about 'illegal immigration'? A huge problem, what with all these folks running around breaking treaties and international law for their own good and such... you do know that they are international outlaws, right? Violating treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a Treaty, too, come to think of it. 'Illegal immigration' is just that as it violates:

1) the law of the Nation they are leaving,
2) the law of the Nation they are going to,
3) the law of Nations for orderly work between Nations,
4) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
5) and any treaties between the two Nations involved regulating same.

International scofflaws, really, when you come right down to it.

So we get the 'open borders' folks and the 'reconquista' activists and those that would just like these scofflaws to OBEY THE DAMNED LAW. Even *just* international law, but really ALL of them like WE DO. But we have a Congress that puts out wrist-slap fines for huge corporations for doing something like violating National Sovereignty by creating illegal contracts. My that sounds nasty! Why aren't we shutting down these criminal operations in the US?

Damned good question! That might require the 'debate' to get away from the international scofflaw illegal aliens and get to cracking down on the enticement side a bit. How about: shutting the company down and auctioning it off and all those found internally supporting such illegal work getting 20 years in prison and some godawful fine? I support *that*! Of course you won't hear the 'two sides' talking about actually having corporate citizens that obey the law... not once nor ever! We set the penalties so low that they are 'part of the cost of doing business' and 'passed on to the consumer': you.

Yes, only YOU can fund illegal aliens! Good job! Don't like that? Well if you don't, then it is time to get away from 'two sides', isn't it? For neither side will put that forward and YOU get to pay for it. You might even *reward* illegals who turn companies in and give them safe escort home and a few thousand bucks reward. Wouldn't that be sweet? Employers would never know if the illegal they wanted to hire was willing to turn them in! Everyone wins!


That sums up a few of the reasons why 'neat and clean' democracy is an inane concept: if it doesn't get a spectrum of voices and views to be heard and only gets 'two sides', then you get some sort of authoritarian government that sets the agenda FOR the People, not the People setting the agenda for it.

If you want a 'neat and clean' government system, try National Socialism or Communism or any despotic dictatorship or autocracy. Those are very, very 'neat and clean' so long as you have adaptable definitions of 'neat and clean' to mean: whatever the boss wants. Want to see a democracy in action? Look at Italy! For awhile there it was a 'government a year' if not more frequently! Very messy. Very unclean. A lot of corruption, of course, but getting less corrupt government is what democracy is supposed to do. Many eyes and minds to hold those granted power accountable to them.

Tribal democracy? Ever been through Appalachia? How about Switzerland's canton system? India, mayhap, with its widely varying views deriving from rural and urban, different ethnicities and multiple religions? That does a good job of emulating 'tribal' while being absolutely recognizable as democracy.

Throw in a bit of federalism to the mix, so that governments are keeping watch on each other and there you go! Extremely messy! Because the 'will of the People' is rarely defined down to two viewpoints. That is what we have in America and it is losing the definition of what democracy *is*. When only two 'sides' get made to be legitimate or the point of any 'debate' is to get something down to 'two sides' you are no longer dealing with a system meant to give input to the widest possible range of views. It is, actually, most unpleasant and stultifying to find people who want there to ONLY be a Left or a Right and forget that the Nation is more than two sides: it is all sides taken as a whole.

Perhaps we can remember that, and soon... else we may be needing the Iraqis to come over and to teach *us* why democracy is messy and unpleasant, and the only system that guarantees that no matter how bad a decision *is* it will have been thoroughly looked at and the *least bad* path can be found. That is often a *good* way forward, even if it is sideways. America has ventured out on a limb with its democracy, and we appear to be hauling the chainsaws out. We don't understand it anymore and will lose it very quickly unless we re-learn it very, very quickly. That is what the founding generation has warned us about, and as things go, liberal democracy has yet to prove its staying power. The success of it is not inevitable, particularly when it degenerates as it has in America.

Because that *is* what Iraq is teaching us... if we care to get off our high horses and learn about that gift given to us.

Sphere: Related Content

Terrorism and its increasing lethality over time

One of the lovely things one can do at the MIPT Terror Knowledge Base is slice through the accumulated terrorist activities that have been going on since the late 1960's and get a feel for some of the overall trends in activity. This is the 'by the numbers' look at things, and is very grossly unfair to some groups that cross multiple categories in their espousing of why, in particular, they should be killing folks. Be that as it may, I will start at the beginning of 1979 as that is really the year the US had to pay attention to things. We had, indeed, been attacked numerous times before that in various parts of the globe, but this is a pointed look at things. Thus start at the beginning:

Terrorist Incidents > by GroupClassification	Range: 01/01/1979 - 01/01/1989
Group Classification Incidents Injuries Fatalities Anarchist 8 3 0 Anti-Globalization 61 48 5 Communist/Socialist 761 1525 252 Environmental 1 42 3 Leftist 110 100 30 Nationalist/Separatist 878 4335 1519 Other 112 414 97 Racist 6 42 2 Religious 190 805 551 Right-Wing Conservative 25 59 19 Right-Wing Reactionary 1 0 0

This conforms with the general view of terrorism of that time, that there were two main forms of it: Left/Communist - 871 incidents and Nationalist/Separatist - 878 incidents. That said the Left/Communist types were a pretty benign variety, with only 0.32 deaths/incident. These include things like attacks on property, infrastructure, hijackings and such.

The Nationalist/Separatist folks were out to make a point at 878 incidents and with 1.73 deaths/incident, they had a lethality scale nearly 6 times that of the Left/Communist sort.

Topping them both, however, is the Religious terrorists, with 190 incidents and a whopping 2.9 deaths/incident. It appears that while there were not that many religious based attacks, they were quite deadly.

This pretty well sums up where terrorism was moving from the Iranian Revolution - with the Left/Reds being relatively light on casualties (think of the various Red Brigades and Red Armies here), the Nationalist/Separatists that inflicted themselves upon governments and their supporters and random passers-by (think IRA, ETA, PLO here) and the virulent religious-based organizations (think Hezbollah and Hamas here).

Moving up one decade and here is what the 1989-1999 era looks like:

Terrorist Incidents > by GroupClassification	Range: 01/01/1989 - 01/01/1999
Group Classification Incidents Injuries Fatalities Anarchist 13 0 0 Anti-Globalization 71 14 10 Communist/Socialist 678 602 397 Environmental 2 0 0 Leftist 137 115 41 Nationalist/Separatist 597 5069 1110 Other 74 47 80 Racist 6 6 0 Religious 294 15292 1758 Right-Wing Conservative 4 0 2 Right-Wing Reactionary 2 2 0

Left/Communist - 815 incidents and 0.49 deaths/incident
Nationalist/Separatist - 597 incidents and 1.86 deaths/incident
Religious - 294 incidents and 5.98 deaths/incident.

Each of the major categories has become more lethal, with the religious incidents more than doubling in lethality while the Left/Communist types almost doubled in lethality. Trailing are the old, homegrown Nationalist/Separatist that only became 10% more lethal over the previous decade.

This is a major change in terrorism from the previous decade. Nationalist/Separatist organizations staged 32% fewer incidents (878 vs 597) but saw the death rate climb by 10% per incident. This is due almost entirely to the sidelining of most of the IRA-based organizations, although some of the more fanatical sorts are still around of course. What remains *are* the more deadly organizations as they want to show *results* to their members. That is not a good trend, at all.

The Left/Communist groups also saw a decline in incidents by 6% (871 v 815) but the deadliness of them increased harshly, going up to 163% of the previous decade. Apparently with the death of the USSR came a change in attitude by such groups that to remain viable they, too, had to show *results*. Additionally some of those organizations (like FARC and Shining Path) had lost primary funding and supply sources (USSR, Cuba) and have resorted to more home grown criminal circumstance with FARC taking over a portion of the narcotics trade in Columbia. So not only results but a shifting from showmanship to a need get revenue to sustain their movements.

It is the religious side that is most worrying, however. The number of incidents climbed to 153% (190 v 294) of the previous decade and the lethality of each incident skyrocketed to 206% of the previous rate. That is a horrific trend which points to the venom with which such attacks are carried out and the shift to 'suicide bombers' that would, in itself, increase the lethality of such attacks. That sole shift would nearly account for the numbers, save the fact that that was not an across-the-board change by all groups. What was seen, however, was more use of rockets, RPGs and VBIEDs. While Israel would suffer the most from suicide bombers, it would be those organizations carrying out VBIED attacks (Hezbollah and al Qaeda) that would shift the balance overall.

Finally there is 1999 to the present:

Terrorist Incidents > by GroupClassification	Range: 01/01/1999 - 09/04/2007
Group Classification Incidents Injuries Fatalities Anarchist 86 6 0 Anti-Globalization 71 14 3 Communist/Socialist 2125 4120 2014 Environmental 80 0 0 Leftist 90 89 20 Nationalist/Separatist 3149 17392 6971 Other 67 174 59 Racist 23 11 1 Religious 2244 21978 11459 Right-Wing Conservative 84 12 247 Right-Wing Reactionary 11 8 14

Left/Communist - 2215 incidents with 0.92 deaths/incident.
Nationalist/Separatist - 3149 incidents with 2.21 deaths/incident.
Religious - 2244 incidents with 5.11 deaths/incident.

The majority of new attacks are in Iraq, which has served as a major point for Islamic terror organizations to organize. Apparently, though, even with the large number of civilians that are being attacked, the actual dead per incident has *dropped* (5.98 v 5.11) over the previous decade. Remove the 9/11 attacks (counted as 3 attacks by MIPT for NYC, Pentagon and Shanksville) and the death toll (2982) that leaves you with 2241 incidents and 8477 killed for a ratio of 3.78 deaths/incident. Outside of 9/11 the attacks going on by Islamic groups in Iraq and elsewhere are far LESS deadly, by 48%, because they are no longer attacking unprepared targets. Also the violence in places like Somalia is dispersed, save for a few concentrated attacks, so that overall casualty rates drop as violence is pushed from urban to rural environments.

With that, however, is less good news as the Left/Communist organizations have ramped up the number of their incidents (2215 v 815) by 272% of the previous decade (again with many staging in Iraq and Afghanistan, but upticks in S. America with FARC being a main contributor). Worse still is that their lethality per incident has increased (0.92 v 0.49) to 188% of the previous decade. Although still less lethal than their Islamic counterparts, this is nearly a 300% increase of the 1979-89 era in fatalities. This rate has not declined but increased over time and consistently so.

On the Nationalist/Separatist side have steeply ramped up incidents (3149 v 597) over the previous decade (in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, East Timor/Sri Lanka, India/Kashmir, Somalia, PKK and still the traditional ETA) by 527% of the previous decade. Here there is also some accounting for Nationalist backlash against outside organizations, increases in separatists movements and by such things as the AUC going after FARC and similar Turkish groups going after the PKK and Islamic organizations. Additionally the casualty rate has increased to 119% of what it was the previous decade (2.21 d/e v 1.86 d/e). This, perhaps, is worse because so little reporting is done on it and the traditional media pays little or no attention to purely Nationalist or Separatist terrorism. In the US, if it is not attacking Americans, it is getting little coverage.

And the decade span is not over yet.


These organizations waging illegitimate and predatory warfare upon Nations and peoples has slowly grown in violence, decade on decade, and are *only* countered by force of arms that is trained to deal with them. By operating outside of the Nation State framework, these organizations are outlaw to it, by the law of nations. To effectively counter these movements and organizations, they cannot be treated as mere criminals violating a particular law here or there: they are a class of organization that threaten all peoples and Nations by seeking to undermine them.

The most virulent and deadly predators are the Islamic sort, but the trends for the other two major types is upwards, decade on decade, with the Nationalist/Separatist organizations now hitting in the same region of deadliness as the Islamic organizations. While their attacks are not major showmanship pieces, often taking place in far off places, the attacks are pointed and lethal. Separatists, in particular, don't tend to throw their lives away in suicide attacks, and thus they keep organizational skills and tactical abilities over time and increase them. With the spread of Islamic disorder has come the spread of organizations that seek to further disturb the order of Nations by their undermining of them through predatory war.

If we concentrate on the purely Islamic sort of predators, we miss the other predators that are also growing in virulence and lethality over time. The US, in particular, cannot afford to treat the Islamic predators *alone* and attempt to differentiate them from those that also seek to destroy the order of all nations. Hitting that sort hard with military capability is something that the US , even with conscription, can do on a global scale. This disease has spread too far, too widely and is engendered by a world awash in 'small arms' that includes inexpensive mortars, RPGs and even such fun things as SAM systems.

It is a pure luxury to think that we can treat only the Islamic predators and leave the rest untouched. That is why we cannot and should not attempt to use a 'semantic battlefield' and 'redefine them' by their own terms: we lose track of what these organizations are and what they do. If the Islamic communities cannot confront such things and properly address them, then those Nations that abide by the law of nations must simply name those predators as outlaw and deal with them summarily as threatening civilization. That is why the Piracy laws deal simply with such individuals when brought in: when found to be a Pirate you get life imprisonment.

That is a civil crime when captured and brought in, but on the battlefield Abraham Lincoln had the full right not only as Commander in Chief but as Head of State to decide that the law of nations needed to be enforced with summary finding on the battlefield. Stopping those who attack in a predatory fashion without sanction from another Nation, requires the harshest penalties civilization can render as such individuals are a true hostis humani generis... an enemy of mankind. Name them for what they do, and the punishment appears to fit the activity. The easy days of warfare between Nations has sunk back to trying to stop predators before they overwhelm the law of nations. And there is a damn sight more of them out there than JUST the Islamic sort.

And they are ALL your enemy.

Sphere: Related Content

Just where *did* they go to?

Well, seeing the link at Instapundit to Jamie Kirchick on "Whither the anti-totalitarian left?" I was quite surprised that one name is mentioned and that Mr. Kirchick did not recognize it as the actual answer to his own question.

So, to help out a bit I will give the name: Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson.

And another name, from the very early era of the Democratic Party: Andrew Jackson.

Old Hickory?

Jacksonians?

Ring any bells?

The Democratic Party committed an unforgiveable sin: after JFK convinced the Jacksonians that Viet Nam was *worth* fighting for, and Johnson continued that, the Democratic Party made it clear that it was going to join the leftists so as to gain *more supporters* and then disavow and 'empower' those wishing to end it dishonorably. Jacksonians are slow to go to war, prefer to put it off before anything, but when you convince them to start fighting they see anything short of victory as defeat. By saying that Viet Nam was lost and not worth fighting, the Democratic Party and their leftist friends turned their back on core Jacksonian values.

That is not something you do *twice* to Jacksonians.

And we did not walk over to the Republican Party as they have yet, to this day, learn how to speak to Jacksonians.

By embracing anti-American ideals, dishonoring the Nation by leaving an ally to be overcome by Communism and its two neighbors falling because of that, the deaths of millions are on the hands of those who espoused leaving: the left and their Democratic Party supporters. A very, very few stalwarts remain trying to redeem the Party of Jackson but I, for one, will have nothing to do with that and will vote for individuals. Never a 'party line' as NO party represents me.

Quite some few Jacksonians stand by America but see the entire two-party system as corrupt beyond redemption. Those you see in the Armed Forces are overwhelmingly Jacksonians. When you take up that America has no right to hold other Nations accountable to their cease-fires, that America should always lose and never, ever fight back, then you are telling Jacksonians to talk a walk away from you. Those of that era did just that. And that is still done to this day, as Jacksonians have joined the perennially disaffected as seen by this:





The above taken from US Census datasets.

By breaking faith with the Jacksonians and corrupting the Party of Jackson to some Transnational Progressivist wonderland that espouses highly anti-liberal themes and authoritarian views towards Americans and the world as a whole, the Democratic party has exchanged a minor fringe of leftists, far less than 10% and most likely hovering at 3% of the public, and told 30% to leave. That is why the Democratic Party stopped winning huge majorities after the 1970's. It is not that the Republican Party grew stronger, but that the support of the Democratic Party walked out on it. And we still HAVE huge problems with the Republican Party, which tends to be Transnational Capitalist at the expense of national sovereignty.

Somehow neither of these seem to be on the path *towards* liberty nor freedom.

And every word that is spouted by Democrats that is defeatist, anti-American, that runs down this Nation at all opportunity and that supports the barbaric enemies of mankind waging predatory war upon all Nations and seeks to excuse it confirms the belief that there is nothing of value left in the Democratic Party. Jacksonians still stand beside the belief that all men are created equal: it is self-evident. To make just government people must find out for themselves that they have those rights, and then value them and defend them and use them to uphold society and keep tyranny in check.

Not by government mandate.

Not by a system of taxation and handouts.

Not by coddling those destroying civilization.

Jacksonians realize that we are in a deadly conflict unlike any that has been seen for centuries as this kind of war has not been FOUGHT for centuries. And yet the defeatist, appeasement oriented, butcher excusing LEFT still trots out its anti-American ideals and puts forward that standing up for civilization and fighting FOR it is NOT WORTH THE COST. There are some liberals left who realize that the civil sword cannot remain unbloodied for peace to have a chance to exist. Our barbaric foes seek to end all Nations and replace it with their own order in the world.

The Left and the Right each have similar outlooks and they are ALL horrific to Jacksonians. And the longer we delay fighting, that we delay calling enemies what they are, and that we delay actually learning the scope of the global problem we are in, means that much, much more blood will be shed to try and preserve what we have. Not to go on the OFFENSIVE, just preserve the liberty and freedoms we have as a Nation amongst Nations.

We stood by and stand by America while the Democratic Party and its Left went off into the wilderness. I, for one, will not be coming to the Left in my lifetime. Nor the Right, for that matter.

Where are the Jacksonians?

Still here. Waiting. Watching. Seeing who stands by the ideals of America and who does not.

And believe me, by my reckoning neither the Left nor the Right amounts to very much on that score. That bodes ill for America and human liberty and freedom. Perhaps the day of Federalist #26 will return to us, and then, indeed, Jacksonians will show up. Let us hope that one of these two sides drifts back from the wilderness before that happens.

Sphere: Related Content