Much has been said and written about why America is having trouble in Iraq---not enough commitment, not enough troops, not enough money, not giving the Iraqi army jobs ASAP, or too much de-baathification. One argument that has not seen as much print is the comparison of Iraq to the former nation of Yugoslavia.
Both Iraq and Yugoslavia are/were ethnically/religiously divided nations that were held together by brutal, but capable, dictators (Saddam Hussein and Josip Broz Tito respectively.) When these dictators were removed/died power struggles amongst ethnic groups ensued; which is the case for Iraq today and was the case for over twenty years.
Unlike Yugoslavia, where there were a myriad of ethnic groups, Iraq only has three: Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. The major issue in the Iraqi ethnic violence, at least for Shia-Sunni violence, is the fact that ever since the time of the Ottoman Empire (founded 1453) is that this Shia majority country has been ruled by the minority Sunnis! When the minority controls the majority it rarely turns out well (the India-Pakistan and Sri Lankaian conflicts jump to mind at the moment.)
Currently if I was Shia very little could be done to quell my internal fires as seeing this “American Occupation” as my people’s chance to be in power for the first time. On the other hand if I was Sunni I would see it as my historical right to control Iraq and want things to go back to the way they were prior to American intervention. As for the Kurdish nation they are on a militaristic precipice with Turkey.
This is the wasp’s nest America has gotten itself into.
A recent poll conducted by D3 systems in Iraq for the BBC, ABC, and other news agencies supports the idea the nation is almost irrevocably torn. Some of the more glaring facts are that seventy-eight percent of Sunnis said it was absolutely wrong for America to have invaded Iraq while seventy percent of Shia felt that it was the correct thing to do. Iraq is expectedly totally divided on the way Saddam Hussein’s execution was held. Optimistically fifty-three percent of Iraqi’s think that in five years Iraq will be a democracy. Pessimistically they blame just about all of Iraq’s woes on the United States and Coalition Forces; seventy-six percent feel that United States and Coalition Forces have done “quite a bad job or a very bad job” since the war, and sixty-nine percent feel that US forces are making Iraq worse.
With that last statistic in mind I want to make one thing very clear: the only time in the past four hundred years the religious and ethnic factions of Iraq could work together on anything was in 1920 during “The Great Iraq Revolution”; an attempt to dislodge the occupying British during the post World One I British occupation of Iraq. The only thing agreed upon in hundreds of years was they did not like foreigners!
I think it is very clear that no matter what type of counterinsurgency the US Army comes up with (short of all out genocide or a massive troop deployment) the only people who will ever be able to stop the violence in Iraq are Iraqis. I have no malice towards the Iraqi people but I think the Iraqi people have “hate” for one and other. Until that ethnic discrimination is eliminated stability and democracy is just a dream.
Currently the United States is trapped---if we leave the nation collapses, if we stay our budget deficit grows larger, and more brave American troops die. The quickest solution, I feel, is to create strong autonomous regions cut, as best they can, along ethnic lines. This Combined with strong revenue sharing across regions could create a stable Iraq; if not Iraq will eventually disintegrate like Yugoslavia or end up in another dictatorial situation with ethnic suppression.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Class Cancelled Thursday
The bloody listserv is defying me, so I hope people are reading this: Class Thursday (March 22) is cancelled in favor of preparation for the simulation. The presentation scheduled for Thursday will be rescheduled for next week.
If you read this, pass it on.
If you read this, pass it on.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Prepping for War?
As tensions escalate between the United States and Iran an interesting article has been getting press overseas but has not really been reported in the United States. Recently, a former Iranian defense minister, Asgari, was kidnapped in Turkey. Not only did this person most likely have information about Ron Arad, missing in action since a 1986 mission over Sidon, Lebanon but also had intimate knowledge in the inner workings of ran's nuclear and military projects.
What makes this story interesting is the supposed CIA or Mossad connection. Furthermore, according to the New York Post, it is believed that Asgari took part, or has links to, the armed group that stormed a U.S.-Iraqi command center in the holy city of Karbala on Jan. 20 and killed five U.S. troops. A Middle East intelligence source said the United States could not let the outrage stand and had been hunting the general ever since. Any information that is gained from this kidnapped general if he was in fact kidnapped by Mossad or the CIA could go a long way in creating a “strong argument” for a war against Iran.
What makes this story interesting is the supposed CIA or Mossad connection. Furthermore, according to the New York Post, it is believed that Asgari took part, or has links to, the armed group that stormed a U.S.-Iraqi command center in the holy city of Karbala on Jan. 20 and killed five U.S. troops. A Middle East intelligence source said the United States could not let the outrage stand and had been hunting the general ever since. Any information that is gained from this kidnapped general if he was in fact kidnapped by Mossad or the CIA could go a long way in creating a “strong argument” for a war against Iran.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
"Lack of Effective Air Power in The Gulf War"
Cyrus, I can somewhat see where you are going but I think you may still be hedging a bet that in the next conflict, the air power will “get them bad guys”. I agree that, yes air power did a good bit. They hit a lot of deep targets within Iraq, they quite possibly demoralized forces and they knocked out 40%, (according to Press) of Iraq’s armored forces.
But Cyrus, your giving air power too much credit. Let’s take a closer look on air power’s effectiveness.
First, there were clear indications that air power’s strategy of decapitation for six weeks prior to major ground operations did not accomplish its goal. This goal, the death of Iraqi leadership and/or the complete breakdown of Iraqi military communications, command and control. We know that key leadership made it out unscathed. Press clearly shows that the Iraqi’s were able to mount a retreat and additionally reposition defensive forces to meet the Coalition left hook. Even over a six week period we must begin to question the value spent in launching sorties, both in time spent and dollar cost, as compared to launching ground forces forward. It could be argued that the air campaign had reached its likely full potential over that six weeks and more time would not necessarily lead to much more progress.
Second, Press explains that many of the forward positioned stocks of supplies (XVIII Corps finds) and the defensively positioned armor of Iraqi forces were largely undisturbed by air power (Amazingly even in open desert!). Majority of the Iraqi armored forces eliminated were on the move, in retreat, on open road. Kind of reminds us of the similar experience we recently had in Afghanistan. Stephen Biddle provides us the vivid examples of a small, small area where concentrated air power still rendered not nearly the destructive effectiveness they sold us on. Imaging taking that air power and diluting it over a much larger theater of Iraq and Kuwait!
Third, if air power failed in any of its missions overall it was the mission to protect the land forces’ penetrating advance through the enemy lines. Robert Pape is clear that this is where air power can earn its money in Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. Pape predicts just what Press shows, air power is less effective against defensive forces. Pape goes further and says that air power should be used to protect the flanks of an attacking force by concentrating its firepower against the repositioning defensive forces maneuvering to meet the attacker. Air power missed this completely in the first engagement in the Gulf. The attacking forces ended up eliminating this counterattacking force itself. What if the Iraqi’s were armed with better armor? What if they had longer ranged fire power? I bet we may not be gloating over the small number of soldiers killed in that conflict now if the Iraqi’s were better equipped. It is clear that air power failed miserably in neutralizing that counterattack and covering the attacking force’s flank.
Cyrus, I’m baffled too. Maybe it was intelligence that failed to point the airpower in the right direction. Maybe it was that they were occupied on other targets. I don’t know. But I know that, had our ground forces not been better equipped, I think they would have had a tough and bloody slog through that attack and that air power, or lack thereof, would be shouldering a large blame for it.
Try this on Cyrus, for an interesting read:
http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15295&archive=true
But Cyrus, your giving air power too much credit. Let’s take a closer look on air power’s effectiveness.
First, there were clear indications that air power’s strategy of decapitation for six weeks prior to major ground operations did not accomplish its goal. This goal, the death of Iraqi leadership and/or the complete breakdown of Iraqi military communications, command and control. We know that key leadership made it out unscathed. Press clearly shows that the Iraqi’s were able to mount a retreat and additionally reposition defensive forces to meet the Coalition left hook. Even over a six week period we must begin to question the value spent in launching sorties, both in time spent and dollar cost, as compared to launching ground forces forward. It could be argued that the air campaign had reached its likely full potential over that six weeks and more time would not necessarily lead to much more progress.
Second, Press explains that many of the forward positioned stocks of supplies (XVIII Corps finds) and the defensively positioned armor of Iraqi forces were largely undisturbed by air power (Amazingly even in open desert!). Majority of the Iraqi armored forces eliminated were on the move, in retreat, on open road. Kind of reminds us of the similar experience we recently had in Afghanistan. Stephen Biddle provides us the vivid examples of a small, small area where concentrated air power still rendered not nearly the destructive effectiveness they sold us on. Imaging taking that air power and diluting it over a much larger theater of Iraq and Kuwait!
Third, if air power failed in any of its missions overall it was the mission to protect the land forces’ penetrating advance through the enemy lines. Robert Pape is clear that this is where air power can earn its money in Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War. Pape predicts just what Press shows, air power is less effective against defensive forces. Pape goes further and says that air power should be used to protect the flanks of an attacking force by concentrating its firepower against the repositioning defensive forces maneuvering to meet the attacker. Air power missed this completely in the first engagement in the Gulf. The attacking forces ended up eliminating this counterattacking force itself. What if the Iraqi’s were armed with better armor? What if they had longer ranged fire power? I bet we may not be gloating over the small number of soldiers killed in that conflict now if the Iraqi’s were better equipped. It is clear that air power failed miserably in neutralizing that counterattack and covering the attacking force’s flank.
Cyrus, I’m baffled too. Maybe it was intelligence that failed to point the airpower in the right direction. Maybe it was that they were occupied on other targets. I don’t know. But I know that, had our ground forces not been better equipped, I think they would have had a tough and bloody slog through that attack and that air power, or lack thereof, would be shouldering a large blame for it.
Try this on Cyrus, for an interesting read:
http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=15295&archive=true
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Airpower in the Gulf War
In The Myth of Air Power in the Persian Gulf War and the Future of Warfare Daryl Press says that the role of airpower was insignificant in defeating the Iraqis. He challenges conventional interpretations of the Gulf War by contending that the six week pre-invasion air campaign did not seriously weaken Iraq’s warfighting capabilities. His evidence, however, is inconclusive.
Press writes that the air campaign failed to impair Iraqi forces in five key aspects: it did not critically damage or restrict maneuver, C3I, supply lines, or Iraqi morale, nor did it critically attrite Iraqi forces. If the Iraq military retained all these capabilities up to the beginning of ground operations, Press argues, the Coalition victory cannot be attributed to the air campaign. This conclusion leads Press to downplay the importance of airpower. However, the evidence he cites is questionable and can support contrary interpretations.
First, consider the attrition of Iraqi forces. About forty percent of Iraqi armored vehicles were damaged during the air war. Press asserts this says little about air effectiveness: Iraqi defensive forces still had favorable force ratios when they were routed by Coalition forces. This is true, but losing forty percent of ones armor (well over one out of every three vehicles), especially when ones military is already outclassed, is still a crucial diminution in warfighting and logistical abilities. Furthermore, Press notes that Coalition commanders missed key air strike opportunities, such as against redeploying Republican Guard divisions during the “left hook” invasion. A well executed air assault on these divisions could have yielded results on par with al-Khafji and the Highway of Death. Thus, rather than demonstrating the inherent limits of airpower, the Gulf War shows both its utility (forty percent attrition is big) and even a greater potential for lethality through improved battlefield awareness.
In addition to forty percent attrition, the six week air strike discombobulated Iraqi forces. Press argues that the Republican Guard and the regular army gave no indication of low morale but fought bravely. However, what appears to be feats of bravery—individual surprise attacks, hopeless forays, etc.—can also be the actions of a befuddled, desperate enemy. The Republican Guard and the regular army may have been quite fazed by the air campaign and simply kept fighting because it was the best alternative option to surrender.
The Front Line Iraqi forces at least were clearly demoralized. They likely caught the worst of the air campaign in terms of supply disruption and attrition, and it was they who in mass either turned tail or surrendered to the (decoy) Marine invasion. At the close of the second day of ground operations, before any major battles had been fought in the “left hook” invasion, Baghdad announced its withdrawal from Kuwait. Thus the Coalition in a sense achieved its primary goal through the complete disintegration of the Iraqi Front Line--the place where the prewar air campaign had been most intense.
In sum, Press is correct to eschew overconfidence in airpower and assert the enduring importance of ground force deployment. However, his argument that the prewar air campaign contributed only slightly to the Coalition’s stunning success rests on inconclusive evidence and may, in fact, be wrong.
Press writes that the air campaign failed to impair Iraqi forces in five key aspects: it did not critically damage or restrict maneuver, C3I, supply lines, or Iraqi morale, nor did it critically attrite Iraqi forces. If the Iraq military retained all these capabilities up to the beginning of ground operations, Press argues, the Coalition victory cannot be attributed to the air campaign. This conclusion leads Press to downplay the importance of airpower. However, the evidence he cites is questionable and can support contrary interpretations.
First, consider the attrition of Iraqi forces. About forty percent of Iraqi armored vehicles were damaged during the air war. Press asserts this says little about air effectiveness: Iraqi defensive forces still had favorable force ratios when they were routed by Coalition forces. This is true, but losing forty percent of ones armor (well over one out of every three vehicles), especially when ones military is already outclassed, is still a crucial diminution in warfighting and logistical abilities. Furthermore, Press notes that Coalition commanders missed key air strike opportunities, such as against redeploying Republican Guard divisions during the “left hook” invasion. A well executed air assault on these divisions could have yielded results on par with al-Khafji and the Highway of Death. Thus, rather than demonstrating the inherent limits of airpower, the Gulf War shows both its utility (forty percent attrition is big) and even a greater potential for lethality through improved battlefield awareness.
In addition to forty percent attrition, the six week air strike discombobulated Iraqi forces. Press argues that the Republican Guard and the regular army gave no indication of low morale but fought bravely. However, what appears to be feats of bravery—individual surprise attacks, hopeless forays, etc.—can also be the actions of a befuddled, desperate enemy. The Republican Guard and the regular army may have been quite fazed by the air campaign and simply kept fighting because it was the best alternative option to surrender.
The Front Line Iraqi forces at least were clearly demoralized. They likely caught the worst of the air campaign in terms of supply disruption and attrition, and it was they who in mass either turned tail or surrendered to the (decoy) Marine invasion. At the close of the second day of ground operations, before any major battles had been fought in the “left hook” invasion, Baghdad announced its withdrawal from Kuwait. Thus the Coalition in a sense achieved its primary goal through the complete disintegration of the Iraqi Front Line--the place where the prewar air campaign had been most intense.
In sum, Press is correct to eschew overconfidence in airpower and assert the enduring importance of ground force deployment. However, his argument that the prewar air campaign contributed only slightly to the Coalition’s stunning success rests on inconclusive evidence and may, in fact, be wrong.
Friday, February 23, 2007
The Gettysburg Powerpoint
Not to bite the hand that feeds us; the class does feature an awful lot of ppt. But DOD does a lot of planning via powerpoint; and it's important to keep in mind the limitations of the medium.Would we be better off if they were communicating plans in actual sentences, rather than this sort of thing?
"Here may be the clearest manifestation of OSD’s contempt for the accumulated wisdom of the military profession and of the assumption among forward thinkers that technology—above all information technology—has rendered obsolete the conventions traditionally governing the preparation and conduct of war," commented retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich
I get the graphic from some old blog posts, and I haven't read the book quoted; so take it for what it's worth.
We've read the Army's counterinsurgency manual; and though we noted a lot of material that looked like a sociology 101 text, it's a thorough document, with actual ideas contained therein.
But decisionmaking at the political levels learned its lessons from the ppt-rich, communication-poor corporate world.
For all the misgivings sociology profs might have at their work being used in an army manual, isn't it miles better than military decisions made and communicated in incomprehensible gibberish?
Cheney’s Analysis of China’s Rise
Vice President Cheney said in a speech in Sydney Austrailia February 23rd that, “Last month's anti-satellite test, China's continued fast-paced military buildup are less constructive and are not consistent with China's stated goal of a peaceful rise.'' The location of this speech is not trivial either, as the Chinese have begun demonstrable efforts to strengthen their leadership in bilateral and multilateral ties with their Asian neighbors and in ASEAN.Pardon me Mr. Vice President, with all due respect, its called deterrence. Deterrence is a key element to maintaining peace, and thereby to a peaceful rise. A state’s capacity to remove an object from within the airspace over its sovereign territory is simply a vertical extension of its national security. A state demonstrating this capacity for the flock of spy satellites perched to keep an eye on that state is simply manifested deterrence.
If the Chinese had dropped 5 JDAM’s into a US Embassy in Europe, or had been conducting spy operations all over the US airspace and coast line, perhaps I could be convinced the Chinese had aggressive rather than defensive motivations. However I can’t help but notice that it is the United States and our dwindling allies that are conducting the warcapades around the world.
Mr. Vice President, I don’t mean to imply that you’re not a reliable source of intelligence data or analysis, but I think I’ll wait until China begins to develop some power projection capabilities that could reach beyond greater China before concluding that China’s rise is anything but peaceful.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Troop Commander Wales
The United Kingdom is withdrawing 1,600 of their now 7,100 troops in Iraq. Even while Prince Harry is being voluntarily deployed to Southern Iraq, Parliament is discussing a complete withdraw of British troops by the end of this year. Troop Commander Wales must be quite the soldier. I can’t help but assume that the White House was aware of this and other allied withdrawals when planning the recent troop surge. I'm wondering, what is the implication for the United States when cornerstone of the “coalition of the willing” is no-longer willing?
Saturday, February 17, 2007
New Plan for Iraq
With the new plan of increasing troops in the Iraq, yesterday, Gen. Fil claimed a new strategy----“clear, control and retain”. He explained,
“The first objective within each of the security districts in the Iraqi capital is to clear out extremist elements neighborhood by neighborhood in an effort to protect the population. And after an area is cleared, we're moving to what we call the control operation. Together with our Iraqi counterparts, we'll maintain a full-time presence on the streets, and we'll do this by building and maintaining joint security stations throughout the city. This effort to re-establish the joint security stations is well under way. The number of stations in each district will be determined by the commanders on the ground who control that area. An area moves into the retain phase when the Iraqi security forces are fully responsible for the day-to-day security mission. At this point, coalition forces begin to move out of the neighborhood and into locations where they can respond to requests for assistance as needed. " [1]
Let’s see the former strategy, “clear, hold and build”. Condoleezza Rice explained,
“Clear the toughest places, no sanctuaries to the enemy, and to disrupt foreign support for the insurgents. We are working to hold and steadily enlarge the secure areas, integrating political and economic outreach with our military operations. We are working to build truly national institutions by working with more capable provincial and local authorities. We are challenging them to embody a national compact, not tools of a particular sect or ethnic group. These Iraqi institutions must sustain security forces, bring rule of law, visibly deliver essential services, and offer the Iraqi people hope for a better economic future. " [2]
Compared with the former strategy, the new plan requires more role of the Iraqi government. The new plan focuses not only on “we” but also on the allies. Having been trained for years, the Iraqi military and police have the capability to share some burden of the US troops. Second, the “clear” task is accomplished in the form of small warfare, which is defined as “neighborhood by neighborhood”. The new tactic may be more suitable for the current Iraqi situation. Third, the Iraqi military is needed in the second phase and security forces are needed in the third phase. They can improve the relationships between Iraqi populace and Coalition Force. Iraqi forces understand the culture, and know how to get along with the populace. More importantly, when they secure and help the area develop, the populace regards them as representative of government, and will respect and support them. If the securing and building job is done by the US army, the Iraqi government cannot establish its own foundation from its people. On the other hand, with the new plan the US can deploy the skilled troops whose positions are handed to Iraqi security forces to achieve the first phase in the new front.
Another interesting stuff is that the new plan gives up the “build” task. Isn’t the status quo situation ready for rebuilding, or does the US want to let Iraqi people develop with their own hands? If the US doesn’t want to help Iraqi economic development, then I think the Iraq War will be a failure, because with the economy deteriorating, Iraqi people can be easily influenced by the extremists and terrorists. If it is not ready, then when is the appropriate time? The moment when all the extremists are cleared out or when the certain area is controlled, or when the area is retained?
“The first objective within each of the security districts in the Iraqi capital is to clear out extremist elements neighborhood by neighborhood in an effort to protect the population. And after an area is cleared, we're moving to what we call the control operation. Together with our Iraqi counterparts, we'll maintain a full-time presence on the streets, and we'll do this by building and maintaining joint security stations throughout the city. This effort to re-establish the joint security stations is well under way. The number of stations in each district will be determined by the commanders on the ground who control that area. An area moves into the retain phase when the Iraqi security forces are fully responsible for the day-to-day security mission. At this point, coalition forces begin to move out of the neighborhood and into locations where they can respond to requests for assistance as needed. " [1]
Let’s see the former strategy, “clear, hold and build”. Condoleezza Rice explained,
“Clear the toughest places, no sanctuaries to the enemy, and to disrupt foreign support for the insurgents. We are working to hold and steadily enlarge the secure areas, integrating political and economic outreach with our military operations. We are working to build truly national institutions by working with more capable provincial and local authorities. We are challenging them to embody a national compact, not tools of a particular sect or ethnic group. These Iraqi institutions must sustain security forces, bring rule of law, visibly deliver essential services, and offer the Iraqi people hope for a better economic future. " [2]
Compared with the former strategy, the new plan requires more role of the Iraqi government. The new plan focuses not only on “we” but also on the allies. Having been trained for years, the Iraqi military and police have the capability to share some burden of the US troops. Second, the “clear” task is accomplished in the form of small warfare, which is defined as “neighborhood by neighborhood”. The new tactic may be more suitable for the current Iraqi situation. Third, the Iraqi military is needed in the second phase and security forces are needed in the third phase. They can improve the relationships between Iraqi populace and Coalition Force. Iraqi forces understand the culture, and know how to get along with the populace. More importantly, when they secure and help the area develop, the populace regards them as representative of government, and will respect and support them. If the securing and building job is done by the US army, the Iraqi government cannot establish its own foundation from its people. On the other hand, with the new plan the US can deploy the skilled troops whose positions are handed to Iraqi security forces to achieve the first phase in the new front.
Another interesting stuff is that the new plan gives up the “build” task. Isn’t the status quo situation ready for rebuilding, or does the US want to let Iraqi people develop with their own hands? If the US doesn’t want to help Iraqi economic development, then I think the Iraq War will be a failure, because with the economy deteriorating, Iraqi people can be easily influenced by the extremists and terrorists. If it is not ready, then when is the appropriate time? The moment when all the extremists are cleared out or when the certain area is controlled, or when the area is retained?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Response to Several Responses
In response to the third and fourth comments of the "We Need More Time, Not Major Shift" post, I see and understand the points both arguments are making. If you look through history, there are many conflicts, both conventional state-on-state, and unconventional; but I believe the fututre holds something different.
Gen. Zinni made the point that conventional battles is the exception, I believe in the future that is true. Iraq and Afghanistan are obviously insurgent battles. If a conflict with Iran irrupts, then that too will be an insurgent battle. They have already threatened the use of tens of thousands of terror style attacks on US interests throughout the world. Terror style attacks in my opinion is not a conventional form of fighting. You may thinik of cases where US, or other state militaries had used this form of attack, but I would argue that they were not fighting conventional battles.
Insurgency is the way of the future I believe, it will certainly be the type of fighting in Iran, and using Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, any leader of a rogue or otherwise enemy state would be folish to do otherwise. It is the only way that does not gaurantee downright defeat. Maybe eventual defeat, but not without taking many lives of their enemy.
North Korea may be the exception, with its vast armies and years worth of targetting and placement of forces. But I would not doubt that Kim has plans at the ready for insurgent tactics. It would be irrational for him not to learn from history. America cannot quickly and successfully fight unconventional wars. It takes much more time and bloodshed to win. This would seem right up Kims ally, he knows he could never win against the US, what else would he have to fall back on. The only other thought would be that he uses his remaining nukes incase of invasion. He could use them tacticly on the battle field. But, do not think for a second he has not thought about, or planned to fight using insurgency tactics.
The fourth comment points out that insurgency is the exception. That might have been true in the past, but not for the future. There a few formidable state militaries could stand against the US, though not successfully. The rest will rely on the only proven tactic they have left; insurgency. Counterinsurgency is a tactic our forces must learn and learn quickly, because it is the battlefield of the future.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A New Threat
With the introduction of China’s new weapon system that can successfully destroy an orbiting satellite, the United States is going to have to reevaluate its intelligence, communications, and military systems. There has been a long running controversy over the use of weapons in space, though the technology is available, it is not known with certainty that there are active weapons systems in space at this time. However, if the reports are true of China’s test, this could bring a new era of a space arms race; one aimed at combating the new technological threats.
Through out the past decade, the United States has increasingly relied on satellite systems for the nation’s national security. They are not only used to protect the home front, but used extensively for military engagements through out the world. The Department of Defenses (DoD) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program relies on GPS and satellite systems to conduct their missions. Smart bombs to pinpoint and strike targets, as well as troops on the ground to know exactly where other forces are located in real time rely on GPS and satellite communications. Additionally, these systems are used for intelligence gathering. The National Security Agency (NSA) uses satellites for surveillance, and most all other radio detection and interception. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) uses them for surveillance on foreign locations and intelligence collection. Most all communications systems for intelligence and military units on the ground are made through the use of satellite systems.
If this new technology is exploited further, there are many concerns that would need to be addressed. The path our national security agencies have been traveling could have leaded us in the wrong direction. We have come to rely on satellites, that if they can be destroyed when we need them most, we do not have a reliable system in place. If America got in a conflict with China regarding any number of issues particularly Taiwan, our satellites would be in grave risk and so would our strategic capability. America needs to be researching and developing new technologies for its communications and intelligence gathering needs. Satellites that are undetectable or that create ghosts to conceal its true location are a few of the defenses our satellites currently have. But new, more secure ways must be developed.
Finally, this new Chinese system may be the start of the new space arms race. Undoubtedly, our intelligence agencies are working to acquire information regarding this Chinese technology. Though America has been the leader in developing new defense technology, it is still necessary to know your opponents full capabilities. A whole new type of weaponry and communications is in the future. Even if this technology is not pursued further, the fact the capabilities are present is something the United States cannot ignore. The Chinese are in the lead when compared to the United States since they have developed this technology first and they likely are already developing ways to combat it. America must make every effort to be at the forefront of this race, if not, our national security policy could be much different than it was just a month back.
Through out the past decade, the United States has increasingly relied on satellite systems for the nation’s national security. They are not only used to protect the home front, but used extensively for military engagements through out the world. The Department of Defenses (DoD) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program relies on GPS and satellite systems to conduct their missions. Smart bombs to pinpoint and strike targets, as well as troops on the ground to know exactly where other forces are located in real time rely on GPS and satellite communications. Additionally, these systems are used for intelligence gathering. The National Security Agency (NSA) uses satellites for surveillance, and most all other radio detection and interception. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) uses them for surveillance on foreign locations and intelligence collection. Most all communications systems for intelligence and military units on the ground are made through the use of satellite systems.
If this new technology is exploited further, there are many concerns that would need to be addressed. The path our national security agencies have been traveling could have leaded us in the wrong direction. We have come to rely on satellites, that if they can be destroyed when we need them most, we do not have a reliable system in place. If America got in a conflict with China regarding any number of issues particularly Taiwan, our satellites would be in grave risk and so would our strategic capability. America needs to be researching and developing new technologies for its communications and intelligence gathering needs. Satellites that are undetectable or that create ghosts to conceal its true location are a few of the defenses our satellites currently have. But new, more secure ways must be developed.
Finally, this new Chinese system may be the start of the new space arms race. Undoubtedly, our intelligence agencies are working to acquire information regarding this Chinese technology. Though America has been the leader in developing new defense technology, it is still necessary to know your opponents full capabilities. A whole new type of weaponry and communications is in the future. Even if this technology is not pursued further, the fact the capabilities are present is something the United States cannot ignore. The Chinese are in the lead when compared to the United States since they have developed this technology first and they likely are already developing ways to combat it. America must make every effort to be at the forefront of this race, if not, our national security policy could be much different than it was just a month back.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Friday, February 09, 2007
Security Needed, Inquire Within.
While we are contemplating an insurgency operation against the U.S. in Iraq, let’s look at the counter-insurgency Iraq itself faces…aka: civil war. What teeth does the young government have to effectively conduct a counter-insurgency of its own?
Pivotal is the establishment of a legitimate government that can effectively provide for the people…and here is the catch…it must be viewed as legitimate by all the people. So what is job one? SECURITY
Much to Thursday’s speaker’s chagrin, Iraq needs some effective force loyal to the government that is capable of maintaining a stable environment which all Iraqi’s feel secure. Anything short of this provides fodder for those groups or individuals that can provide security to its base.
So what folks be might an Iraqi enlist support?
a) Shiite Militias come to mind. Wow…they are already organized, trained and tacitly supported by a big country full of resources. I wonder if those Shiites would try to use their influence to take control of the government…by means other than popular election.
b) Sunni. Small, effective at guarding turf through terror tactics. Hardly the guys I would want to protect the resource-rich land that I have and they don’t.
c) Kurds. They’re nice guys. They have somewhat of an organized security force (when it’s not busy in Turkey). They could cover down on the rest of Iraq and provide security. But what is the incentive…besides that… they have to work on getting ready to defend Kurdistan.
d) The Americans!!! That’s it. They started this thing. Why don’t they hang around indefinitely and do it. Nnaaa. Their public will never support it…especially with media trolling the streets. Besides…they have other world wide operations and elections to worry about.
e) Hey…how about some of the neighbors. They would love to help out in Iraq. Eyeeee…it could just be a repeat of a, b, and c.
Well, I guess we are just going to have to go with the Iraqi Security Force. Yep..definitely. The trick will be to build a strong enough loyal force and eliminate, or render them ineffective, the partisan forces that could pose future threats and derail the government. But how do we do that?
I would imagine that we have to increase the effectiveness of our bureaucracy. That could be real tough and time consuming considering we have not had an effective government bureaucracy that tended to all the populace’s needs in nearly 40 years. That of course will require an organizational culture change at a minimum. Secondly, perhaps some mentorship would help. Are there any effective governments out there that could really help us with our lower echelon bureaucratic workings and issues at the local (not provincial) level? Sounds like the U.S. is running short.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=February&x=20070208145128sjhtrop0.3155481
Pivotal is the establishment of a legitimate government that can effectively provide for the people…and here is the catch…it must be viewed as legitimate by all the people. So what is job one? SECURITY
Much to Thursday’s speaker’s chagrin, Iraq needs some effective force loyal to the government that is capable of maintaining a stable environment which all Iraqi’s feel secure. Anything short of this provides fodder for those groups or individuals that can provide security to its base.
So what folks be might an Iraqi enlist support?
a) Shiite Militias come to mind. Wow…they are already organized, trained and tacitly supported by a big country full of resources. I wonder if those Shiites would try to use their influence to take control of the government…by means other than popular election.
b) Sunni. Small, effective at guarding turf through terror tactics. Hardly the guys I would want to protect the resource-rich land that I have and they don’t.
c) Kurds. They’re nice guys. They have somewhat of an organized security force (when it’s not busy in Turkey). They could cover down on the rest of Iraq and provide security. But what is the incentive…besides that… they have to work on getting ready to defend Kurdistan.
d) The Americans!!! That’s it. They started this thing. Why don’t they hang around indefinitely and do it. Nnaaa. Their public will never support it…especially with media trolling the streets. Besides…they have other world wide operations and elections to worry about.
e) Hey…how about some of the neighbors. They would love to help out in Iraq. Eyeeee…it could just be a repeat of a, b, and c.
Well, I guess we are just going to have to go with the Iraqi Security Force. Yep..definitely. The trick will be to build a strong enough loyal force and eliminate, or render them ineffective, the partisan forces that could pose future threats and derail the government. But how do we do that?
I would imagine that we have to increase the effectiveness of our bureaucracy. That could be real tough and time consuming considering we have not had an effective government bureaucracy that tended to all the populace’s needs in nearly 40 years. That of course will require an organizational culture change at a minimum. Secondly, perhaps some mentorship would help. Are there any effective governments out there that could really help us with our lower echelon bureaucratic workings and issues at the local (not provincial) level? Sounds like the U.S. is running short.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=February&x=20070208145128sjhtrop0.3155481
Train Iraqis?
One of the more controversial points in Thursday’s presentation was the recommendation for the US to abandon, temporarily at least, the training of Iraqi security forces. The argument is that training Iraqis at this time has a higher opportunity cost than does focusing solely on a US led counterinsurgency. This viewpoint has a few flaws.
It is argued that the US should exercise caution in training and equipping Iraqi forces since such accoutering may be turned against the US down the road. But unless the US plans to provide security in Iraq indefinitely, it must eventually outfit and train an effective Iraqi security force. The longer this is delayed, the more turbulent will be the transition from a predominantly US military administration to an Iraqi one.
A well trained Iraqi security force would also provide a strong boost to the counterinsurgency. An Iraqi force would come naturally equipped with local knowledge—language ability, cultural and geographical awareness, understanding of community norms—and would also enhance domestic support for the war, two advantages that are highly valuable (perhaps vital) to waging counterinsurgency.[1] Indeed, Krepinevich argues that a key error in General Westmorland’s approach to the Vietnam war was his reluctance to improve coordination between the US and the ARVN. While there are salient differences between Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq, the principle of cooperating with indigenous anti-insurgency forces still applies.
Finally, training Iraqi forces is consistent with the nature of the ongoing conflict. The US is fighting a counterinsurgency, not against itself, but on behalf of another government. Accordingly, making full use of that government’s forces, cooperating with them and training them, is not only judicious but more or less demanded by the conventions of interstate relations. By relegating the role of Iraqi forces in the defense of their own nation, the US will only give credence to the criticisms of those who have described Iraq as a pawn on the US chessboard of international statecraft.
It may be that training Iraqis decreases the resources available for a purely US counterinsurgency. But the advantages that would be realized through an effective Iraqi force, not to mention the satisfaction it would give to international opinion, more than compensate for the loss.
[1] Joes, Anthony, Resisting Rebellion, The University Press of Kentucky, 122-155.
It is argued that the US should exercise caution in training and equipping Iraqi forces since such accoutering may be turned against the US down the road. But unless the US plans to provide security in Iraq indefinitely, it must eventually outfit and train an effective Iraqi security force. The longer this is delayed, the more turbulent will be the transition from a predominantly US military administration to an Iraqi one.
A well trained Iraqi security force would also provide a strong boost to the counterinsurgency. An Iraqi force would come naturally equipped with local knowledge—language ability, cultural and geographical awareness, understanding of community norms—and would also enhance domestic support for the war, two advantages that are highly valuable (perhaps vital) to waging counterinsurgency.[1] Indeed, Krepinevich argues that a key error in General Westmorland’s approach to the Vietnam war was his reluctance to improve coordination between the US and the ARVN. While there are salient differences between Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq, the principle of cooperating with indigenous anti-insurgency forces still applies.
Finally, training Iraqi forces is consistent with the nature of the ongoing conflict. The US is fighting a counterinsurgency, not against itself, but on behalf of another government. Accordingly, making full use of that government’s forces, cooperating with them and training them, is not only judicious but more or less demanded by the conventions of interstate relations. By relegating the role of Iraqi forces in the defense of their own nation, the US will only give credence to the criticisms of those who have described Iraq as a pawn on the US chessboard of international statecraft.
It may be that training Iraqis decreases the resources available for a purely US counterinsurgency. But the advantages that would be realized through an effective Iraqi force, not to mention the satisfaction it would give to international opinion, more than compensate for the loss.
[1] Joes, Anthony, Resisting Rebellion, The University Press of Kentucky, 122-155.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Public Perception of the War on Terror
The hunt for Al Qaeda to the general public has been focused mainly in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it must be realized that this hunt does not solely reside in this region, but expands across all regions of the world. The reason for this lack of knowledge could be traced back to the operational tactics used by US and other ally forces. Additionally, this could also be a cause for the lowered support for the war on terror.
Under a White House directive, the Pentagon after September 11th was given the “authority to hunt and kill suspected terrorists around the globe”. [1] Though the hunt continues to this day yielding very few “high value targets”, these operations are conducted by highly trained special operations units, many of which have been redeployed from Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from these units’ roles as forward military operators, they also conduct operations very similar to those of intelligence officers. This dual role has called into question their use as spies, rather than as a military fighting force.
These special operations units have come increasingly in the public eye since Islamic forces have fought against the Ethiopian military in Somalia. The United States has been giving the Ethiopian forces updated intelligence reports to almost assure the Ethiopians success in their operations. Recently, an American gunship was used to strike a position believed to be that of several senior level Al Qaeda members in Somalia. Later, American special operations units were used to secure the air strike sight and collect evidence.
The tactics used for fighting the various al qaeda groups vary greatly when comparing Iraq and Afghanistan to those in Somalia. The first two consist of a large military force, the troops are overt in military dress, gear, and they are transported in large convoys obvious to al qaeda fighters. In Somalia, the tactics are much more discreet. These unites are trained in covert counterterrorism forms of combat. They execute their duties covertly whether it is a military operation or an intelligence operation. The styles and tactics used is a major cause for the lack of information the general public has about counterterrorism operations in other parts of the world.
Support for the war on terror has been dwindling and in order to gain it back, the public must have a clear picture of what the tasks at hand are. There is much attention from the news and political leaders about what’s going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, that it is forgotten where else the fight is also taking place. Due to the nature of the warfare taking place in Africa and in order for the public to understand the magnitude of the fight against terror, there must be special attention made to inform the public about other areas of the world where the war on terror is also taking place. Perhaps with an increase in knowledge and understanding, public support may raise to levels seen in years past.
[1] Pentagon Sees Move in Somalia as Blueprint, MARK MAZZETTI, January 13, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/world/africa/13proxy.html?_r=1
Friday, February 02, 2007
In Just and Unjust Wars Michael Walzer gives some moral guidelines concerning war. But neither Walzer nor just war theory provides clean cut rules for military behavior. There is always a degree of uncertainty in warfare, and this uncertainty is centrally important to just war analysis, particularly the principle of proportionality.
Just war theory usually has two “in war” guidelines: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination argues that military force ought only to be applied against combatants, and civilians should be exempt. There does not seem to be much uncertainty here. It is generally incorrect to kill people, and even in war, the logic goes, civilians should be spared since they pose no direct threat to combatants. Fair enough. But the waters become murkier when we make the jump to proportionality.
Proportionality argues that the use of force should be limited such that the achieved goal justifies the injury inflicted. This injury, Walzer tells us, may sometimes include civilians. Now at first this sounds utilitarian: if the object seems useful enough, proceed with your destruction. But in fact “proportionality” is a blend of principle and uncertainty and is not utilitarian. There are actually two principles at work: the first is to avoid destruction. However, since we are currently engaged in war it is assumed we believe there is some higher principle at stake—perhaps our territorial integrity or the protection of our population.
Thus there is a collision of principles: the principle to avoid human destruction versus, say, the right to territorial integrity. This is where uncertainty comes alive. Just war theory will say that the right of national territory is in fact the higher principle. But how “higher” is it? And what level of retaliation does it justify? Are we allowed, morally speaking, to lie to the enemy? Can we kill the enemy soldiers? Bomb his cities? Invade his country? And after we win, can we devastate his country to remove a future threat? The answer, to all of these questions, is: we’re not sure. There is no rule. So, we introduce proportionality, which in a reworded definition could read: “keep your application of violence at the lowest level possible that will still allow you to achieve your goal in fighting.” We are uncertain how much violence we can morally employ in response to their aggression, so let’s limit it all we can.
To borrow from Clausewitz, the “fog of war” encompasses more than strategic and tactical moves; it also includes the realm of moral decision-making. Since we are never certain what exigencies justify violence against human life, nor the level of that violence, we are well advised at all times to proceed cautiously. This is the principle of proportionality.
Just war theory usually has two “in war” guidelines: discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination argues that military force ought only to be applied against combatants, and civilians should be exempt. There does not seem to be much uncertainty here. It is generally incorrect to kill people, and even in war, the logic goes, civilians should be spared since they pose no direct threat to combatants. Fair enough. But the waters become murkier when we make the jump to proportionality.
Proportionality argues that the use of force should be limited such that the achieved goal justifies the injury inflicted. This injury, Walzer tells us, may sometimes include civilians. Now at first this sounds utilitarian: if the object seems useful enough, proceed with your destruction. But in fact “proportionality” is a blend of principle and uncertainty and is not utilitarian. There are actually two principles at work: the first is to avoid destruction. However, since we are currently engaged in war it is assumed we believe there is some higher principle at stake—perhaps our territorial integrity or the protection of our population.
Thus there is a collision of principles: the principle to avoid human destruction versus, say, the right to territorial integrity. This is where uncertainty comes alive. Just war theory will say that the right of national territory is in fact the higher principle. But how “higher” is it? And what level of retaliation does it justify? Are we allowed, morally speaking, to lie to the enemy? Can we kill the enemy soldiers? Bomb his cities? Invade his country? And after we win, can we devastate his country to remove a future threat? The answer, to all of these questions, is: we’re not sure. There is no rule. So, we introduce proportionality, which in a reworded definition could read: “keep your application of violence at the lowest level possible that will still allow you to achieve your goal in fighting.” We are uncertain how much violence we can morally employ in response to their aggression, so let’s limit it all we can.
To borrow from Clausewitz, the “fog of war” encompasses more than strategic and tactical moves; it also includes the realm of moral decision-making. Since we are never certain what exigencies justify violence against human life, nor the level of that violence, we are well advised at all times to proceed cautiously. This is the principle of proportionality.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Joseph Nye and the Domestic Front
Nye’s ideas of soft and hard power represent an excellent view of how the
But is this the case? When reviewing the domestic sphere in the US, Nye notes that the power of the American domestic sphere is found in numerous aspects, but the one I take issue with in this entry is in the continuing power of the “melting pot” ideal (118). Nye notes that this idea of the melting pot continues to shape American culture as it both integrates different cultures into the American domestic sphere and broadens America’s interests abroad (118, 119). However, many political theorists, including but certainly not limited to Kimberly Curtis in Our Sense of the Real, Michael Warner in Publics and Counter Publics, Jurgen Habermas in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and John Dewey in The Public and Its Problems bring forth arguments that oppose Nye’s mystical melting pot. I will only expand on Curtis here.
Kimberly Curtis notes a strong increase in enclaving within
More importantly, however, is the role of shaping reality to each individual person. Curtis states that “our ability to experience and constitute a world shared in common is utterly dependent on that world appearing to us through the eyes of others” (16). It then logically follows that if we are to understand and comprehend a true sense of reality the eyes that we look through must be the eyes of those different from us. Otherwise, if we are to live in a homogenous society, we are basically seeing ourselves through our own eyes at all times and thus never experiencing a true reality.
The breakdown of the plurality of our society deeply undermines not only our soft power but also our hard power. In Nye’s words “If these divisions were as deep as portrayed, they could undercut our hard power by inhibiting our capacity to act collectively, and diminish our soft power by reducing the attractiveness of our society and culture” (113).
If the fears of these theorists are true and the undermining of
Monday, January 15, 2007
Starring: The USA
Since the end of the Cold War, American power has surged to unprecedented heights and currently dominates the international stage. The absence of counterbalancing on the part of other major powers has lead several scholars to conclude that the international system has evolved from a balance-of-power framework to a more complex international network. Moreover, according to several theorists like Joseph Nye, power itself has developed into something “less tangible and less coercive,” and currently exists in two forms: coercive “hard power” and co-opting “soft power.” With the transformative influence of globalization, power has evolved into something more than brute strength; and with the fall of the Iron Curtain, the United States has taken the international stage as the main actor in this current power play.
Now the main question is: for how long will it last? America plays an unprecedented role, and it appears that as long as the international audience is satisfied, the performance will most likely continue. Indeed, it seems that in the twenty-first century, the biggest threat to American power is not the emergence of another strong actor or troupe of actors; instead, the biggest threat to American power is America itself. If the United States acts as a prima donna and irritates her captive audience, she may be ushered off the international stage. Conversely, America may choose to exit the world stage prematurely, thus ushering in a new wave of international actors in a new power play.
If the United States is to continue as the world’s superpower, it must learn how to effectively use both hard and soft power resources. The danger is that the United States will bow out of the international power play, financially burdened by military costs; or, the United States may become arrogant, and fail to temper hard power with attractive, soft power. Both situations may be avoided if America recognizes and respects her fellow actors. As Nye relates in the Paradox of American Power: “The multiplicity of new actors means that there is very little the United States can achieve alone” (169). Thus, it appears that on the international stage, there truly are no small parts, only small actors. The United States, as the ‘biggest’ player on world stage, should recognize that its powerful size is largely contingent upon the support of fellow actors.
Now the main question is: for how long will it last? America plays an unprecedented role, and it appears that as long as the international audience is satisfied, the performance will most likely continue. Indeed, it seems that in the twenty-first century, the biggest threat to American power is not the emergence of another strong actor or troupe of actors; instead, the biggest threat to American power is America itself. If the United States acts as a prima donna and irritates her captive audience, she may be ushered off the international stage. Conversely, America may choose to exit the world stage prematurely, thus ushering in a new wave of international actors in a new power play.
If the United States is to continue as the world’s superpower, it must learn how to effectively use both hard and soft power resources. The danger is that the United States will bow out of the international power play, financially burdened by military costs; or, the United States may become arrogant, and fail to temper hard power with attractive, soft power. Both situations may be avoided if America recognizes and respects her fellow actors. As Nye relates in the Paradox of American Power: “The multiplicity of new actors means that there is very little the United States can achieve alone” (169). Thus, it appears that on the international stage, there truly are no small parts, only small actors. The United States, as the ‘biggest’ player on world stage, should recognize that its powerful size is largely contingent upon the support of fellow actors.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Imp Awards '06 - Year In Review
Soul of Hitler: Good evening.
Soul of Pinochet: Adolph, before we present tonight's final award, I must say I loved your work in Poland in the 1940's. Just magnificent.
Hell's audience: (Standing ovation)
Soul of Hitler: (Touching heart) Thank you all so much. Please, please sit down. I only wish that the Bundeswehr had had as much enthusaism.
Hell's audience: (Laughter)
Soul of Pinochet: Haha. Good one. Well, without further ado, the nominees for The Best Armed Conflict of 2006 are:
The continued insurgencies by Marxists in India and Nepal (video clip of dead people along roadside); the seperatist insurgencies in Sri Lanka and Thailand (video clip of beheaded Buddhist monks).
Soul of Hitler: The usual ethnic bloodshed in the resource-rich nations of Africa (video clip of child soldiers and refugees); the genocide in Darfur (video clip of a rape of one woman by 5 janjaweed).
Soul of Pinochet: The U.S. led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (video clip of blindfolded and cuffed Sunnis and Shiites with bullet holes in the back of their heads); the Israeli-Hezbollah War (video clip of a burning Beirut and hysteria in Haifa); and finally, the suprise late entry, the war between Ethiopia and Somalia (video clip of the professional Ethiopian army mowing down waves of teenage Somali Islamists).
Soul of Hitler: And the winner is (Opens envelop. Dramatic pause.). Unglaublich! The genocide in Darfur. Accepting this award is Mohammed Yusef Jihad, the latest janjaweed militia member killed by Sudanese rebels 11 minutes ago.
Soul of Jihad: Wow! Words can't explain how I feel. I definitely wasn't expecting this...I mean, all of the other nominees were so deserving. Um...well...I guess first I have to thank Allah and his prophet Mohammed. I also need to thank President Bashir and all the leadership in Khartoum for providing us aircover as we laid waste to women and children...I also want to thank the leadership in Moscow and Beijing for their support on the UN Security Council. Thanks, fellas!
Hellspawn Orchestra: (begins to play music)
Soul of Jihad: I guess that's my cue. Real quickly, thanks to my dad and 4 wives. Also, sons, it's late and I hope you're in bed by now and not watching this. Thanks again!
Soul of Judas: (enters stage right) Thanks to everyone tonight. I had an incredible time hosting the Imp Awards for the 2006th straight time. We've had an amazing year. Ares' thirst for bloodshed was certainly sated, and Lucifer added plenty of new souls to his coffers. Hopefully I'll see you all at the Vanity Fair afterparty! Good night!
Soul of Pinochet: Adolph, before we present tonight's final award, I must say I loved your work in Poland in the 1940's. Just magnificent.
Hell's audience: (Standing ovation)
Soul of Hitler: (Touching heart) Thank you all so much. Please, please sit down. I only wish that the Bundeswehr had had as much enthusaism.
Hell's audience: (Laughter)
Soul of Pinochet: Haha. Good one. Well, without further ado, the nominees for The Best Armed Conflict of 2006 are:
The continued insurgencies by Marxists in India and Nepal (video clip of dead people along roadside); the seperatist insurgencies in Sri Lanka and Thailand (video clip of beheaded Buddhist monks).
Soul of Hitler: The usual ethnic bloodshed in the resource-rich nations of Africa (video clip of child soldiers and refugees); the genocide in Darfur (video clip of a rape of one woman by 5 janjaweed).
Soul of Pinochet: The U.S. led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (video clip of blindfolded and cuffed Sunnis and Shiites with bullet holes in the back of their heads); the Israeli-Hezbollah War (video clip of a burning Beirut and hysteria in Haifa); and finally, the suprise late entry, the war between Ethiopia and Somalia (video clip of the professional Ethiopian army mowing down waves of teenage Somali Islamists).
Soul of Hitler: And the winner is (Opens envelop. Dramatic pause.). Unglaublich! The genocide in Darfur. Accepting this award is Mohammed Yusef Jihad, the latest janjaweed militia member killed by Sudanese rebels 11 minutes ago.
Soul of Jihad: Wow! Words can't explain how I feel. I definitely wasn't expecting this...I mean, all of the other nominees were so deserving. Um...well...I guess first I have to thank Allah and his prophet Mohammed. I also need to thank President Bashir and all the leadership in Khartoum for providing us aircover as we laid waste to women and children...I also want to thank the leadership in Moscow and Beijing for their support on the UN Security Council. Thanks, fellas!
Hellspawn Orchestra: (begins to play music)
Soul of Jihad: I guess that's my cue. Real quickly, thanks to my dad and 4 wives. Also, sons, it's late and I hope you're in bed by now and not watching this. Thanks again!
Soul of Judas: (enters stage right) Thanks to everyone tonight. I had an incredible time hosting the Imp Awards for the 2006th straight time. We've had an amazing year. Ares' thirst for bloodshed was certainly sated, and Lucifer added plenty of new souls to his coffers. Hopefully I'll see you all at the Vanity Fair afterparty! Good night!
Sunday, September 24, 2006
WJC
Anybody see this?
I never really experienced the Clinton years. I was too young in the first term and too apathetic towards politics at the end of his second term to have ever really "known" him. Last summer I read The Survivor (which is both very informative and very fair) and learned a lot of things that I never knew. By the time I started to follow poltics, Clinton was out of office; so most of the things that I know him for are the things he's done out of office.
This interview with Chris Wallace is interesting. It is nice to see a President who is articulate and smart. Even if he cites Richard Clarke a little too much, I feel like he dissects Wallace's points several times down to their core. I would have loved to see him in a Presidential debate. His analytical abilities are inspiring, and should threaten any right-wing pundit trying to pull "a fast one" on him.
I never really experienced the Clinton years. I was too young in the first term and too apathetic towards politics at the end of his second term to have ever really "known" him. Last summer I read The Survivor (which is both very informative and very fair) and learned a lot of things that I never knew. By the time I started to follow poltics, Clinton was out of office; so most of the things that I know him for are the things he's done out of office.
This interview with Chris Wallace is interesting. It is nice to see a President who is articulate and smart. Even if he cites Richard Clarke a little too much, I feel like he dissects Wallace's points several times down to their core. I would have loved to see him in a Presidential debate. His analytical abilities are inspiring, and should threaten any right-wing pundit trying to pull "a fast one" on him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
