Re News Analysis: Wall St. Sees Silver Lining in Economy by Peter S. Goodman:
The actions of the Federal Reserve, namely, lowering short-term interest rates, are like putting a Band Aid on a deep wound.
The dollar has been falling steadily since the Bush invasion of Iraq. This war has cost us, directly and indirectly, between one and two trillion dollars. Since we are in debt, all of this cost must be borrowed, mostly from our adversaries (China and Arab Muslim nations). Lowering short-term interest rates puts downward pressure on the dollar, making our currency even weaker. Eventually, foreign owners of American securities will get tired of losing money, and cut their losses by selling our securities, causing our markets to crash.
It would be better to make fundamental changes to strengthen our economy. We need higher taxes to stop borrowing money from our adversaries. We need higher interest rates to encourage saving by ordinary Americans. We need to end the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bring home our troops. (There are better ways to fight the War on Terror.) We need to expand the production of nuclear (fission) power, in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to spend $billions on nuclear fusion R&D.
The higher taxes should come from a more progressive income tax, and from tariffs. The latter means we need to exit from the WTO.
An idiot with a smart plan beats a genius with no plan. Right now, we have no smart plan to strengthen our economy. The plan I propose is tough medicine, but we live in a cruel world. We have no time to waste.
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Crazy Energy Bill
Re Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency by John M. Broder and Micheline Maynard:
The article says that House leaders reached a deal on proposed energy legislation. I am all in favor of the automobile mileage requirements (35 mpg). However, I think the proposal that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020, would be insane.
I have long argued that we need to produce most of our electric power from nuclear reactors. That would be the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore weaken our enemies in the war on terror, because the more electricity we produce, the lower the price of electricity, and that would incentivize production of electric vehicles.
I have also long advocated R&D to develop viable nuclear fusion power. The advances made in the Bussard fusion reactor show the promise of that technology. Surely we can take a few billion dollars out of the trillions we are wasting in stupid Middle East wars and spend that money on fusion R&D.
Forcing utilities to spend billions on wind and solar is crazy. These technologies are proven failures. They will never yield the massive and growing energy needs of our nation. Requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from wind and solar would be the biggest gift to Osama bin Laden since the insane invasion of Iraq.
The article says that House leaders reached a deal on proposed energy legislation. I am all in favor of the automobile mileage requirements (35 mpg). However, I think the proposal that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020, would be insane.
I have long argued that we need to produce most of our electric power from nuclear reactors. That would be the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore weaken our enemies in the war on terror, because the more electricity we produce, the lower the price of electricity, and that would incentivize production of electric vehicles.
I have also long advocated R&D to develop viable nuclear fusion power. The advances made in the Bussard fusion reactor show the promise of that technology. Surely we can take a few billion dollars out of the trillions we are wasting in stupid Middle East wars and spend that money on fusion R&D.
Forcing utilities to spend billions on wind and solar is crazy. These technologies are proven failures. They will never yield the massive and growing energy needs of our nation. Requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from wind and solar would be the biggest gift to Osama bin Laden since the insane invasion of Iraq.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Kill Pakistani Taliban In Quetta
Re Op-Ed Contributor: Caution: Taliban Crossing by Arthur Keller (a former C.I.A. case officer in Pakistan) in today's NY Times:
Quote from article: "This year has seen a notable lack of Qaeda members killed or captured in Pakistan. The Afghan government has turned over detailed lists of names and addresses for Taliban members residing in Pakistan, particularly in the city of Quetta. Not only has this information not led to arrests, Pakistan has routinely continued to deny that the Taliban’s leadership is in Quetta. A Pakistani military officer told me last year (in an uncharacteristic fit of honesty): “If we are not catching the Taliban, it is not because the Taliban is so clever, or so good at hiding. We just aren’t trying.”"
The way forward should be clear. We need to establish "death squads" based in Pakistan to hunt down and kill members of al Qaeda and the Taliban who live there. While this may seem outlandish, considering that Pakistan is a sovereign country, it is not. Pakistan forfeited their sovereignty by harboring, aiding and abetting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. To do otherwise sends the following message to our enemy: you can attack the United States of America and then live happily ever after in Pakistan.
Somehow, George W. Bush thought that installing a puppet government in Afghanistan, and then invading Iraq, was the way to deal with our enemy. Clearly, such an insane policy was doomed to failure, and failure is what we are living with today.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know who our next president will be, but I hope we get someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to crush our enemy and finally win the War on Terror.
Quote from article: "This year has seen a notable lack of Qaeda members killed or captured in Pakistan. The Afghan government has turned over detailed lists of names and addresses for Taliban members residing in Pakistan, particularly in the city of Quetta. Not only has this information not led to arrests, Pakistan has routinely continued to deny that the Taliban’s leadership is in Quetta. A Pakistani military officer told me last year (in an uncharacteristic fit of honesty): “If we are not catching the Taliban, it is not because the Taliban is so clever, or so good at hiding. We just aren’t trying.”"
The way forward should be clear. We need to establish "death squads" based in Pakistan to hunt down and kill members of al Qaeda and the Taliban who live there. While this may seem outlandish, considering that Pakistan is a sovereign country, it is not. Pakistan forfeited their sovereignty by harboring, aiding and abetting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. To do otherwise sends the following message to our enemy: you can attack the United States of America and then live happily ever after in Pakistan.
Somehow, George W. Bush thought that installing a puppet government in Afghanistan, and then invading Iraq, was the way to deal with our enemy. Clearly, such an insane policy was doomed to failure, and failure is what we are living with today.
I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know who our next president will be, but I hope we get someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to crush our enemy and finally win the War on Terror.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Where Our Enemies Live
Foreign Fighters in Iraq Are Tied to Allies of U.S. by Richard A. Oppel Jr. in today's NY Times shows where the foreign al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq come from. The leading source countries are no surprise: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco. These countries should head our list of bombing targets in the event that we finally decide to win and therefore end the war on terror, and/or we are attacked again on our homeland.
Here is the first of several quotes from the article:
"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006....
About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population."
This is why it is puzzling that so many pundits warn us not to withdraw from Iraq for fear that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran would slaughter the Iraqi Sunnis. In my book, that would be a great outcome, since not only are most of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq Sunni, but also because the 9/11 attackers were all Sunni.
"American military and diplomatic officials who discussed the flow of fighters from Saudi Arabia were careful to draw a distinction between the Saudi government and the charities and individuals who they said encouraged young Saudi men to fight in Iraq. After United States officials put pressure on Saudi leaders in the summer, the Saudi government took some steps that have begun to curb the flow of fighters, the officials said."
Our foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia is irrational. First, their government did not take the required steps to curb the flow of fighters for several years, until we "prodded" them. Second, that government is a dictatorship which does not even represent the majority of the Saudi population, which hates us even more than the government. "Yet the senior American military officials said they also believed that Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." I believe that "Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda" period. Ditto for the warm bodies as well.
"The largest foreign fighter hometown was Darnah, Libya, which supplied 50 fighters." So, add that city to our list of future bombing targets.
"For years American officials included Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But last year the United States removed it from that list and re-established full diplomatic relations, citing what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as Libya’s “continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation” it has provided in the antiterrorism fight." What leadership! "But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total." So, Lebanon, if not removed completely from the list of future bombing targets, should be placed at the very end of any such list.
"Saudis brought more money per person than fighters from other nations, the American officials said." No surprise. Every time we buy gasoline for our cars, we are giving money to Saudis who use it to kill Americans.
"Among the Saudi fighters described in the materials, 45 had come from Riyadh, 38 from Mecca, 20 from Buraidah and the surrounding area, 15 from Jawf and Sakakah, 13 from Jidda, and 12 from Medina." This suggests a priority list of targets by our bombers. Mecca and Medina also have symbolic value, since our enemy's religion plays such a large role in the present war.
"Sunni tribal sheiks in Iraq who risked their lives to fight extremist militants also faulted Saudi clerics." This demonstrates clearly that not all Muslims are our enemy. We should always be mindful that we can break the spirit of our enemy by killing large numbers of them and yet only a tiny percentage of them. That is how we won World War II.
Another example of the role Islam plays in this war: "“The bad imams tell the young people to go to Iraq and fight the American Army, because if you kill them or they kill you, you will go to paradise,” Sheik Adnan Khames Jamiel, a leader of the Albu Alwan tribe in Ramadi, said in an interview."
Islam is by no means a monolith, and we can use the ancient tactic of divide and conquer to defeat our enemy: "... the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Asheik, condemned “mischievous parties” who send young Saudis abroad to carry out “heinous acts which have no association with Islam whatsoever.”"
The raid on Sinjar "happened in the predawn hours of Sept. 11, when American forces acting on a tip surrounded some tents six miles from the Syrian border". What irony.
"Most of the fighters smuggled by the cell were believed to have flown into Damascus Airport, and the rest came into Syria overland through Jordan, the officials said.
In some cases, one senior American military official said, Syrian authorities captured fighters and released them after determining they were not a threat to the Syrian government. Syria has made some recent efforts to turn back or detain suspected foreign fighters bound for Iraq, he said, adding, “The key word is ‘some.’”" As I have long argued, Syria should certainly be near the top of our target list, perhaps right after the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
Here is the first of several quotes from the article:
"The data come largely from a trove of documents and computers discovered in September, when American forces raided a tent camp in the desert near Sinjar, close to the Syrian border. The raid’s target was an insurgent cell believed to be responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The most significant discovery was a collection of biographical sketches that listed hometowns and other details for more than 700 fighters brought into Iraq since August 2006....
About four out of every five detainees in American detention centers are Sunni Arab, even though Sunni Arabs make up just one-fifth of Iraq’s population."
This is why it is puzzling that so many pundits warn us not to withdraw from Iraq for fear that the Shiites in Iraq and Iran would slaughter the Iraqi Sunnis. In my book, that would be a great outcome, since not only are most of the insurgents we are fighting in Iraq Sunni, but also because the 9/11 attackers were all Sunni.
"American military and diplomatic officials who discussed the flow of fighters from Saudi Arabia were careful to draw a distinction between the Saudi government and the charities and individuals who they said encouraged young Saudi men to fight in Iraq. After United States officials put pressure on Saudi leaders in the summer, the Saudi government took some steps that have begun to curb the flow of fighters, the officials said."
Our foreign policy towards Saudi Arabia is irrational. First, their government did not take the required steps to curb the flow of fighters for several years, until we "prodded" them. Second, that government is a dictatorship which does not even represent the majority of the Saudi population, which hates us even more than the government. "Yet the senior American military officials said they also believed that Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." I believe that "Saudi citizens provided the majority of financing for Al Qaeda" period. Ditto for the warm bodies as well.
"The largest foreign fighter hometown was Darnah, Libya, which supplied 50 fighters." So, add that city to our list of future bombing targets.
"For years American officials included Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. But last year the United States removed it from that list and re-established full diplomatic relations, citing what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as Libya’s “continued commitment to its renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation” it has provided in the antiterrorism fight." What leadership! "But there were no Lebanese listed among the Sinjar trove, and only 56 Syrians, or 8 percent of the total." So, Lebanon, if not removed completely from the list of future bombing targets, should be placed at the very end of any such list.
"Saudis brought more money per person than fighters from other nations, the American officials said." No surprise. Every time we buy gasoline for our cars, we are giving money to Saudis who use it to kill Americans.
"Among the Saudi fighters described in the materials, 45 had come from Riyadh, 38 from Mecca, 20 from Buraidah and the surrounding area, 15 from Jawf and Sakakah, 13 from Jidda, and 12 from Medina." This suggests a priority list of targets by our bombers. Mecca and Medina also have symbolic value, since our enemy's religion plays such a large role in the present war.
"Sunni tribal sheiks in Iraq who risked their lives to fight extremist militants also faulted Saudi clerics." This demonstrates clearly that not all Muslims are our enemy. We should always be mindful that we can break the spirit of our enemy by killing large numbers of them and yet only a tiny percentage of them. That is how we won World War II.
Another example of the role Islam plays in this war: "“The bad imams tell the young people to go to Iraq and fight the American Army, because if you kill them or they kill you, you will go to paradise,” Sheik Adnan Khames Jamiel, a leader of the Albu Alwan tribe in Ramadi, said in an interview."
Islam is by no means a monolith, and we can use the ancient tactic of divide and conquer to defeat our enemy: "... the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdulaziz al-Asheik, condemned “mischievous parties” who send young Saudis abroad to carry out “heinous acts which have no association with Islam whatsoever.”"
The raid on Sinjar "happened in the predawn hours of Sept. 11, when American forces acting on a tip surrounded some tents six miles from the Syrian border". What irony.
"Most of the fighters smuggled by the cell were believed to have flown into Damascus Airport, and the rest came into Syria overland through Jordan, the officials said.
In some cases, one senior American military official said, Syrian authorities captured fighters and released them after determining they were not a threat to the Syrian government. Syria has made some recent efforts to turn back or detain suspected foreign fighters bound for Iraq, he said, adding, “The key word is ‘some.’”" As I have long argued, Syria should certainly be near the top of our target list, perhaps right after the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Gaza, Dreams and Religion
The people of Gaza are living in misery today. Their economy is poor, there are many street gangs inflicting violence on innocent people, and most of the population is despondent. It need not be this way.
Hamas runs Gaza. Hamas orders daily rocket fire at Israel, and plans terrorist attacks against Israelis. Hamas does this because their leaders are Islamic fundamentalists. That ideology will not allow them to stop hating Israel.
Suppose somehow all the people of Gaza, while asleep one night, had the same dream. In this dream, "God" spoke to them and told them that He is not Allah, there is no Allah, Muhammad was not a prophet, and the Koran is a work of fiction; the only way for the people of Gaza to please Him would be for them to make peace with the Israelis, and love their neighbors, and live ethical lives; religion poisons everything; all religions are false; no man can know His mind; He does not want to be worshipped.
The next day, Hamas and all the Muslims in Gaza would renounce Islam; crime would stop; the attacks on Israel would end; the leaders of Hamas would contact the Israeli leaders and state that they have "seen the light" and want peace; a peace treaty with Israel would be signed; all economic sanctions against Gaza would end; all physical barriers between Gaza and Israel would be removed; Gazans and Israelis would live in peace and prosperity.
The former Hamas leaders would spread the Word throughout the Middle East, and all its neighbors would seek peace with Israel. The message of Peace would then spread throughout the Islamic world, and eventually all 1,300,000,000 Muslims would renounce their false religion and try to live in peace with all other peoples. Al Qaeda would cease to exist, and the United States would declare an end to the War on Terror. Gitmo would be closed forever, and all political prisoners of the War on Terror would be released.
This is my dream.
Hamas runs Gaza. Hamas orders daily rocket fire at Israel, and plans terrorist attacks against Israelis. Hamas does this because their leaders are Islamic fundamentalists. That ideology will not allow them to stop hating Israel.
Suppose somehow all the people of Gaza, while asleep one night, had the same dream. In this dream, "God" spoke to them and told them that He is not Allah, there is no Allah, Muhammad was not a prophet, and the Koran is a work of fiction; the only way for the people of Gaza to please Him would be for them to make peace with the Israelis, and love their neighbors, and live ethical lives; religion poisons everything; all religions are false; no man can know His mind; He does not want to be worshipped.
The next day, Hamas and all the Muslims in Gaza would renounce Islam; crime would stop; the attacks on Israel would end; the leaders of Hamas would contact the Israeli leaders and state that they have "seen the light" and want peace; a peace treaty with Israel would be signed; all economic sanctions against Gaza would end; all physical barriers between Gaza and Israel would be removed; Gazans and Israelis would live in peace and prosperity.
The former Hamas leaders would spread the Word throughout the Middle East, and all its neighbors would seek peace with Israel. The message of Peace would then spread throughout the Islamic world, and eventually all 1,300,000,000 Muslims would renounce their false religion and try to live in peace with all other peoples. Al Qaeda would cease to exist, and the United States would declare an end to the War on Terror. Gitmo would be closed forever, and all political prisoners of the War on Terror would be released.
This is my dream.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
How to Win the War on Terror
Osama bin Laden (OBL) and his fellow travelers in al Qaeda (AQ) do not fear death, since they believe that they will go immediately to "paradise" if they are killed in their jihad with us. That is one reason why I wrote in a previous post that we should use carpet bombing in our war with AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
The idea is to cause AQ and OBL in particular emotional pain for their acts of war against us. Ideally, if they suffered enough pain, they would eventually surrender to us or be betrayed by their fellow Islamists. But I have also called for the US to use its ample soft power to defeat AQ.
One target of our soft power should be the twisted religious ideology of OBL and AQ. We should get as many Islamic clerics as possible to denounce OBL and AQ, and explain how OBL has mis-read their faith.
But, if it turns out that that does not work because Islam itself is on the side of OBL and AQ (Michael Scheuer's position), then we should take it upon ourselves, in this time of war, to reform Islam ourselves.
As one who does not subscribe to any organized religion, and who agrees with Christopher Hitchens that "religion poisons everything", I have no compunctions about the United States attacking OBL's faith if that is what it will take to win this war. Obviously, if that premise is false, then there is no need for us to take that drastic step. But unless and until we see a groundswell of Islamic clerics from around the world stating unequivocally that OBL and AQ are wrong in their interpretations of Islam, we shall have to assume that task ourselves.
Keep in mind that in a different era, we fought enemies much more powerful than AQ, and they subscribed to ideologies too: Nazism and the worship of the Japanese Emperor. Yet, after we had inflicted enough pain on the populations which supported our enemies, they discarded their ideologies and surrendered unconditionally to us. We should work towards the very same outcome with OBL and AQ.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Ron Paul
I thought about supporting Ron Paul for President, because I agree with him on Iraq and Afghanistan, and because presidents have much more leeway in foreign policy than they do in domestic affairs. But I do not agree with him in how we should deal with al Qaeda (AQ).
He only wants to use letters of marque and reprisal to capture and kill the enemy. While these Constitutional instruments should be used, we need to do a lot more in this "war on terror". (The latter expression may not be the best one, in light of Michael Scheuer's ideas expressed in "Imperial Hubris", but I will continue to use it until I finish his book and come up with something better, perhaps along the lines of "war on AQ insurgents" or something less cumbersome.) I have already said what I would do (see below).
Still, what he says about Iraq and Afghanistan, and about what led to 9/11, I could not agree with more. He stands heads and shoulders above all the presidential candidates of both major parties on these critical issues. I wish him well, and thank him for his many services to our nation.
He only wants to use letters of marque and reprisal to capture and kill the enemy. While these Constitutional instruments should be used, we need to do a lot more in this "war on terror". (The latter expression may not be the best one, in light of Michael Scheuer's ideas expressed in "Imperial Hubris", but I will continue to use it until I finish his book and come up with something better, perhaps along the lines of "war on AQ insurgents" or something less cumbersome.) I have already said what I would do (see below).
Still, what he says about Iraq and Afghanistan, and about what led to 9/11, I could not agree with more. He stands heads and shoulders above all the presidential candidates of both major parties on these critical issues. I wish him well, and thank him for his many services to our nation.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Islamic World Needs New Leadership
There are supposed to be about 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. I have seen polls which suggest varying amounts of support among them for Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ). I imagine a lot of them are "on the fence".
The question that the AQ supporters and the Muslims on the fence should ask themselves is, "Are we better off today than we were on September 10, 2001?".
While I am still reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer (along with several other books), I must admit that I agree with almost everything he has written. However, I think he goes a bit overboard in "understanding" OBL and AQ. Of course, we need to understand our enemy. But I come from the school of thought which says you kill him first, then later, at your leisure, try to understand what motivated the guy.
Nevertheless, I have to think that OBL must be second-guessing himself by now. Does he really think there is any way for him to win this war? Are Muslims better off today? I don't think so. There are a lot more people (several billions) who are not Muslim, and many of us now have a very low opinion of Islam, post 9/11.
(As an agnostic, I think all the major religions are nonsense, but they do vary in how much hatred they spawn today, and no religion has "clean hands". (The Inquisition was not very nice.)
The world of humans is very tribal and violent. One would hope that along with all the nonsense about paradise, "God" (definitions vary, as well as whose side "He" is on), angels and devils, at least religion would bring some peace to man's bloody history, but then one would be mistaken.
Sure, there are peaceful Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. But not nearly enough.)
The only way to turn this around, before it gets any worse for Muslims, is for the "Islamic nation" to replace OBL as its leader. Otherwise, OBL may get his hands on a WMD and kill a great number of Americans. That would lead to a "world war" of America against the "Islamic nation", and that would look a lot different than the so-called wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which really aren't wars, but stupid "nation-building").
It is not my job, or America's, to tell Muslims who to "select" as the next leader. (In fact, "selection" is not the right term, but the idea is, Muslims need a new leader, and it is up to Muslims to find him or her.) OBL talks about paradise and dignity, but delivers blood. He gets fame, but Muslims get pain.
As for Israel, Muslims need to accept it. Israel is also not going away. Instead of supporting OBL and AQ, Muslims should support real anti-poverty programs and education, and allow Palestinians to live anywhere in the "Islamic nation", not segregated into ghetto-like refugee camps.
The world is just a tiny spec of dust in a vast universe. There are something like (10 to the power 22) stars just like our sun. Does anyone really think they know "God"? What is the probability that "God" talks to mere Earthly humans, versus the probability that some mentally ill people are merely experiencing auditory hallucinations? We can only guess at such questions; not one of us actually "knows" the whole truth.
When the "Islamic nation" matures, it will discover a small truth that some of us are already privy to: we humans start out all the same, and none of us is special: we are equally all just insignificant specks of dust in a vast, incomprehensible universe, and that is why we invent religions.
But back to the world as it is. Messy. Painful. Full of strife. Tribal. Angry. The so-called Islamic Nation can never defeat the United States of America. The sooner it realizes this, the sooner it will choose a new leader. Until then, there will be just more pain and humiliation.
The question that the AQ supporters and the Muslims on the fence should ask themselves is, "Are we better off today than we were on September 10, 2001?".
While I am still reading "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer (along with several other books), I must admit that I agree with almost everything he has written. However, I think he goes a bit overboard in "understanding" OBL and AQ. Of course, we need to understand our enemy. But I come from the school of thought which says you kill him first, then later, at your leisure, try to understand what motivated the guy.
Nevertheless, I have to think that OBL must be second-guessing himself by now. Does he really think there is any way for him to win this war? Are Muslims better off today? I don't think so. There are a lot more people (several billions) who are not Muslim, and many of us now have a very low opinion of Islam, post 9/11.
(As an agnostic, I think all the major religions are nonsense, but they do vary in how much hatred they spawn today, and no religion has "clean hands". (The Inquisition was not very nice.)
The world of humans is very tribal and violent. One would hope that along with all the nonsense about paradise, "God" (definitions vary, as well as whose side "He" is on), angels and devils, at least religion would bring some peace to man's bloody history, but then one would be mistaken.
Sure, there are peaceful Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. But not nearly enough.)
The only way to turn this around, before it gets any worse for Muslims, is for the "Islamic nation" to replace OBL as its leader. Otherwise, OBL may get his hands on a WMD and kill a great number of Americans. That would lead to a "world war" of America against the "Islamic nation", and that would look a lot different than the so-called wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (which really aren't wars, but stupid "nation-building").
It is not my job, or America's, to tell Muslims who to "select" as the next leader. (In fact, "selection" is not the right term, but the idea is, Muslims need a new leader, and it is up to Muslims to find him or her.) OBL talks about paradise and dignity, but delivers blood. He gets fame, but Muslims get pain.
As for Israel, Muslims need to accept it. Israel is also not going away. Instead of supporting OBL and AQ, Muslims should support real anti-poverty programs and education, and allow Palestinians to live anywhere in the "Islamic nation", not segregated into ghetto-like refugee camps.
The world is just a tiny spec of dust in a vast universe. There are something like (10 to the power 22) stars just like our sun. Does anyone really think they know "God"? What is the probability that "God" talks to mere Earthly humans, versus the probability that some mentally ill people are merely experiencing auditory hallucinations? We can only guess at such questions; not one of us actually "knows" the whole truth.
When the "Islamic nation" matures, it will discover a small truth that some of us are already privy to: we humans start out all the same, and none of us is special: we are equally all just insignificant specks of dust in a vast, incomprehensible universe, and that is why we invent religions.
But back to the world as it is. Messy. Painful. Full of strife. Tribal. Angry. The so-called Islamic Nation can never defeat the United States of America. The sooner it realizes this, the sooner it will choose a new leader. Until then, there will be just more pain and humiliation.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
The Danger of Complacency in the War on Terror
It is frustrating to see America become complacent in the war on terror. I am certain that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are determined to detonate a WMD in either Manhattan or Washington, DC, or in both places at once. Yet America is not fighting the enemy the way it ought to.
After Pearl Harbor, we did not rest until after we had crushed Nazi Germany and Japan, and they each surrendered unconditionally. Yet today we are paralyzed with political correctness and have forgotten that war requires we do horrible things in order to win it.
It is always a matter of degree. Reasonable people can argue about when the war began. I strongly believe it began in 1993 when the enemy first attacked our World Trade Center in New York. (Sometimes, I think it began in 1979 when our embassy in Tehran was invaded.) But one thing is for sure: ever since 9/11, we have been in a state of war.
I don't know what Al Gore would have done had he been president. But George W. Bush has done worse than doing nothing, since his weak actions have only served to do the following:
1. Weaken us economically. We are down about a trillion dollars due to his incompetence. To make matters worse, he cuts taxes, making us even weaker.
2. Prolong the war. His nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq have prolonged the war and served as a recruiting tool for our enemy. There are now more terrorists gunning for us, and planning that WMD attack, than on September 10, 2001.
3. Fight from weakness. We have not fought from our strength, but instead, we fight according to the script OBL has written.
So, what should we do? I already outlined two different strategies, one using soft power, the other hard power. But our problem is caused by weak and inept leadership both in the White House and in the military.
Bush has received, deservedly, much criticism. But not enough has been said about the weak, inept military leadership. To be clear, I am not talking about the rank and file in our officer corps, but the highest echelons. The ones who are supposed to advise the civilians in the Pentagon and White House.
Apparently, they failed to explain to Bush et al what it means to be at war. What we are supposed to do to our enemy. The dangers of protracted, ineffective wars.
I realize I have little credibility on military issues. But it is my understanding that at places like West Point, our cadets are taught about the histories of war, and lessons learned. Some of this focuses on the classics from Greek and Roman Empire eras. A large part of it is based on our own history regarding, in particular, the Revolutionary War (in which my ancestors fought), our Civil War, and World Wars I and II.
What I know is this: you must crush your enemy, or else he will come back to try to kill you another day. We are not doing this, so we grow weaker, and the enemy gathers his strength.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and stir up our country the way it was stirred up on December 7, 1941. Or somehow resurrect FDR and replace Bush with him. Or replace our generals with men like Sherman, Lee, Grant, Eisenhower, and Patton. But that won't happen. Still, I believe Americans like that are out there somewhere. Maybe they are junior officers who learned their history lessons well. But the great men I cited also had moral courage. The courage to do what is both right and necessary, and don't give a damn what the media says about them, or whether their actions are politically correct.
We must accept both that war is hell, and that we are at war. We must kill many innocent women and children, because our bombs cannot distinguish between them and our enemies. We must inflict so much pain and agony on our enemy that it will surrender unconditionally. We must be so ferocious that they will believe that "God" is on our side, not theirs.
After Pearl Harbor, we did not rest until after we had crushed Nazi Germany and Japan, and they each surrendered unconditionally. Yet today we are paralyzed with political correctness and have forgotten that war requires we do horrible things in order to win it.
It is always a matter of degree. Reasonable people can argue about when the war began. I strongly believe it began in 1993 when the enemy first attacked our World Trade Center in New York. (Sometimes, I think it began in 1979 when our embassy in Tehran was invaded.) But one thing is for sure: ever since 9/11, we have been in a state of war.
I don't know what Al Gore would have done had he been president. But George W. Bush has done worse than doing nothing, since his weak actions have only served to do the following:
1. Weaken us economically. We are down about a trillion dollars due to his incompetence. To make matters worse, he cuts taxes, making us even weaker.
2. Prolong the war. His nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq have prolonged the war and served as a recruiting tool for our enemy. There are now more terrorists gunning for us, and planning that WMD attack, than on September 10, 2001.
3. Fight from weakness. We have not fought from our strength, but instead, we fight according to the script OBL has written.
So, what should we do? I already outlined two different strategies, one using soft power, the other hard power. But our problem is caused by weak and inept leadership both in the White House and in the military.
Bush has received, deservedly, much criticism. But not enough has been said about the weak, inept military leadership. To be clear, I am not talking about the rank and file in our officer corps, but the highest echelons. The ones who are supposed to advise the civilians in the Pentagon and White House.
Apparently, they failed to explain to Bush et al what it means to be at war. What we are supposed to do to our enemy. The dangers of protracted, ineffective wars.
I realize I have little credibility on military issues. But it is my understanding that at places like West Point, our cadets are taught about the histories of war, and lessons learned. Some of this focuses on the classics from Greek and Roman Empire eras. A large part of it is based on our own history regarding, in particular, the Revolutionary War (in which my ancestors fought), our Civil War, and World Wars I and II.
What I know is this: you must crush your enemy, or else he will come back to try to kill you another day. We are not doing this, so we grow weaker, and the enemy gathers his strength.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and stir up our country the way it was stirred up on December 7, 1941. Or somehow resurrect FDR and replace Bush with him. Or replace our generals with men like Sherman, Lee, Grant, Eisenhower, and Patton. But that won't happen. Still, I believe Americans like that are out there somewhere. Maybe they are junior officers who learned their history lessons well. But the great men I cited also had moral courage. The courage to do what is both right and necessary, and don't give a damn what the media says about them, or whether their actions are politically correct.
We must accept both that war is hell, and that we are at war. We must kill many innocent women and children, because our bombs cannot distinguish between them and our enemies. We must inflict so much pain and agony on our enemy that it will surrender unconditionally. We must be so ferocious that they will believe that "God" is on our side, not theirs.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Israel
I hope Israel wins all its battles and its long war with terrorists. Long live Israel!
Even so, it was a big mistake to support Zionism pre-1948, and a big mistake to create Israel in 1948. (It would have made more sense to carve out a Jewish homeland in the middle of defeated Germany after World War II.)
Still, we do not live in an ideal world; we have to cope with the world as it actually is. And Israel is a true ally of the United States, unlike most of the other countries in the Middle East. We were not attacked by crazed Israelis on 9/11, but by crazed Arabs.
We should stop giving foreign aid to Israel, except insofar as the aid directly enhances our own security.
I do not see a comparable argument for continuing foreign aid to Egypt. In fact, it appears that most Egyptians have a very low opinion of America.
We should not sell any weapons to Arab nations while we are fighting the war on terror. We should continue to sell weapons to Israel as long as the technology of those weapons stays in Israel and does not enhance the technology of any of our adversaries, such as China.
Even so, it was a big mistake to support Zionism pre-1948, and a big mistake to create Israel in 1948. (It would have made more sense to carve out a Jewish homeland in the middle of defeated Germany after World War II.)
Still, we do not live in an ideal world; we have to cope with the world as it actually is. And Israel is a true ally of the United States, unlike most of the other countries in the Middle East. We were not attacked by crazed Israelis on 9/11, but by crazed Arabs.
We should stop giving foreign aid to Israel, except insofar as the aid directly enhances our own security.
I do not see a comparable argument for continuing foreign aid to Egypt. In fact, it appears that most Egyptians have a very low opinion of America.
We should not sell any weapons to Arab nations while we are fighting the war on terror. We should continue to sell weapons to Israel as long as the technology of those weapons stays in Israel and does not enhance the technology of any of our adversaries, such as China.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
War on Terror
It would appear that the Bush Administration does not realize that Osama bin Laden (OBL) and al Qaeda (AQ) are happy with the present course of events. We fell for OBL's trap when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. It has already cost us about a trillion dollars (considering future liabilities such as cost of extracting our troops and future health care for disabled veterans). In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported last month "that the cost of a long-term United States troop presence in Iraq, similar to the U.S. commitment in South Korea, could reach $2 trillion or more in 2008 dollars". (Source: "CBO projects long-term troop presence in Iraq could be costly" by Peter Cohn in CongressDaily dated September 20, 2007.)
There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.
Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.
Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.
Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.
The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.
I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?
As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.
As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.
I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.
It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.
So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.
There are less expensive ways to defeat OBL and AQ. In a past posting ("How To Defeat Al Qaeda"), I explained how we could win the war using soft power. Today, I will explain how we could win the war using hard power.
Let us suppose that we withdrew our military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, save for a few military bases. We would defend these bases using any and all military options at hand: mine fields, advanced artillery, air power.
Further suppose we brought home all troops from South Korea. This is important, since it is the aim of AQ to defeat us first economically. (That is why they attacked the World Trade Center. They are happy we are nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan because it is such a drain on us economically. For further evidence, look at the collapse of the dollar and the tripling of oil prices since we invaded Iraq.) Bringing home the troops from Korea will save us billions of dollars.
Next, we develop military plans to wipe out any or all of about 20 different cities in nations where a majority of the populations support terrorism. By this I mean complete destruction using conventional weapons (as opposed to WMDs), as we did during World War II in Europe. These plans should be "on the shelf", ready to use at a moment's notice.
The next step would be for the American President to give a televised speech during which he would announce our intention to escalate the war on terror, and demand the unconditional surrender of OBL and all the leaders of AQ. He would give them 24 hours to do this. If this demand is not met, the US would select one city and then proceed to flatten it. Then, after a suitable interval, the American president would make another speech and promise the same result, but indicate that the next attack would be on two cities, then three cities, and so on.
I anticipate two strong and reasonable objections to this policy:
1. It is too harsh.
2. How would this process end if OBL were among the dead?
As to the first, it is harsh, but we are at war. There is no reason to think that AQ would not use a WMD in Manhattan as soon as it gets its murderous hands on such a weapon, and that is only a matter of time. AQ signed the death warrants of its own people the day OBL planned the 9/11 attacks, and current polling clearly demonstrates that OBL is a hero to people everywhere, and they support AQ in their hearts, if not directly. Besides, we should look forward to the day when America is once again at peace with these nations, just as we are now at peace with Germany and Japan, our enemies during WWII. But that day will not come soon if we "stay the course" and bleed to death in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor would it come soon were we to surrender to AQ. Therefore, we have no choice but to increase the level of pain until AQ's supporters finally decide that this is not a war that they can win.
As for the second objection, since AQ is a worldwide organization, it would be impossible for the US to kill the entire leadership in the manner proposed here. Therefore, some AQ leaders would survive several American strikes, and would tell us where OBL was hiding when we killed him. But in all likelihood, OBL himself would survive all such strikes, and surrender himself.
I realize that this is not a politically correct solution to our current war on terror. In fact, I prefer the solution I posted in "How To Defeat Al Qaeda". But I think we are running out of time, especially considering AQ's announced intentions and the unstable situation in nuclear Pakistan.
It is also true that America is partly to blame for the mess we are in. I have long and frequently argued that we should never have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. We should have "minded our own business" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
But we cannot turn back the hands of time, and we do not live in an ideal world. We have to deal with the world as it is today, not as it might have been.
So far, we have tried to avoid collateral damage. We have used "smart bombs". We have allowed people around the world to finance terrorism without paying a price. We have allowed a hateful ideology to spread, and now it threatens our very existence. So, it is now a time for real war. On our terms, not on the enemy's terms. A war we will win. But first, we need to take off the gloves. Innocent people do die in wars. The sooner we realize this, the sooner even more innocent people will survive to live another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)