re: "The Poor Palestinians"

Ted Belman at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") considers the plight of the Palestinians without irony or insult.

Money quote(s):

""Palestinian" is a name given to Arabs after the '67 War, who lived or did live in the area known as Palestine during the Palestine Mandate and afterwards right up to the present, and includes their descendants, even if such descendants never set foot in the area known as Palestine."

Oddly, the name "Palestinian" as used after the '67 War, excludes all non-Arab inhabitants of the same geographic area, most notably (but not solely) the Israelis to whom it previously had applied to exclusively.

"United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a relief and human development agency, providing education, health care, social services and emergency aid to 5 million Palestine refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, as well as in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. UNRWA was specifically created to maintain the refugee status, not to end it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland." "

Fortunately, implementation of this instruction has not been universal.

"In Jordan, less than 20% of the refugees live in camps. This is because when Jordan purported to annex the West Bank after the '48 War, it granted all the Palestinians living there and in Jordan proper, citizenship. After the '67 War in which Israel regained Judea and Samaria, many more Palestinians fled to Jordan and over the years since, many Palestinians from the West Bank emigrated there. It is estimated today that the number of Palestinians in Jordan total in excess of 5,000,000 of which only about 2 million are registered refugees. They constitute about ¾ of the total population of Jordan. Given this fact and the fact that the West Bank has approximately 1.5 million Palestinians, one might rightfully argue that Jordan is the Palestinian homeland." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Perhaps the Hashemite dynasty might ought consider re-branding itself as protectors of the Palestinian people.

(Or not.)

"The Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have the right to form a government and govern themselves within the confines of the Oslo Accords. Their government known as the Palestinian Authority (PA) has full autonomy in all matters save for a limitation on matters of security affecting Israel. How they govern themselves is up to them. In effect the Palestinians elect Palestinians to govern them. Whereas in Jordan, the Palestinians are severely underrepresented in the Chamber of Deputies where the minority Bedouin hold sway. If that weren't bad enough, all executive power is vested in the King.

It can safely be said that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are the authors of their own misfortune. In their past elections, they choose parties, whether Fatah or Hamas, that are wedded to the "resistance" which is a euphemism for terrorism. The result of this "resistance," whether in the form of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into civilian areas in Israel or the deployment of suicide bombers by Fatah in Jerusalem and Israel generally, Israel has placed restrictions on them such as a legal blockade of Gaza and travel restrictions in the West Bank. These restrictions are for security purposes only and not intended as punishment. Nevertheless, in the last three years, Israel has been easing these restrictions, and as a result, the Palestinian economy in the West Bank is experiencing an astounding 7% growth rate."

"(T)he Palestinians living in Jordan who have citizenship have no say in their present condition or in their destiny. Their fate is dependent on what the PA chooses to do yet they have no vote in PA elections. Nor do they have a say equivalent to their numbers in Jordan due to the gerrymandering above noted."

2/12

re: "In Lieu of Rough Handling"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") posed some questions of lawfulness and Constitutionality.

Money quote(s):

"(S)econd thoughts on the killing of an American citizen abroad by agents of the US government"

Naturally, as a consular officer the notion of killing an Amcit is so far outside the pale that it mega-boggles the mind.

From a more soldierly, laws of land warfare-minded, perspective it's certainly possible to envision such as thing in terms of inadvertently killing an Amcit in the course of combat operations, either as an adversarial combatant (i.e., the enemy) or as a collateral (unintended) casualty.

After all, stopping to examine one's opponents passports or citizenship status prior to engaging by fire and maneuver just doesn't come up in any standard format for an operations order that CAA has ever encountered.

Nonetheless, when standoff weapons (such as drone-launched missiles) are so accurate as to constitute sharpshooting and to (finally) give some semantic substance to the term "surgical strike," we must take a pause and consideration in cases where the U.S. citizenship status of an enemy belligerent is known (and, indeed, is a substantial component of the danger he presents to us).

"From a constitutional perspective, we’ve definitely crossed a line here. We sidestepped up to it over the years, little by little. And then vaulted over it in the dark, while no one was looking. It’d be nice if one of the aforementioned, named gentlemen explained to us where the new line has been drawn, if it has been. And if it has not, it would also be useful for a people of laws, governed by express consent, to know who will have a hand in drawing it."

10/11

re: "Why State is Incompetent at Development"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") reported on Amb. Crocker's return to Kabul and a turf battle to resolve (as of this weekend, he's still there).

Money quote(s):

"One of his first tasks in his new job will be to repair the dysfunctional relationship between U.S. diplomats in Kabul and Afghanistan-based USAID officials, which has hampered U.S. development assistance in the country."

In light of recent developments, this doesn't seem like that big a deal. But given the monetary amounts involved, that perception would be, perhaps, short-sighted.

"(A)ccording to a recent report by the State Department Inspector General's office, the relationship has suffered from bureaucratic and communications issues between aid workers and diplomats.

The report found that the problems between the embassy and USAID in Kabul stem in part from the State Department's idea that chiefs of mission should be in charge of all development issues in their country, as envisioned by the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) that State released earlier this year."

Where could the State Dept. possibly have gotten this idea, considering that ambassadors are the personal representatives of the president and responsible for all U.S. Government activities in their country-of-assignment (unless there's a MOU or SOFA to the contrary)?

(CAA is being disingenuous, of course.)

"The report went on to say that bureaucratic differences "exacerbate feelings of professional misunderstanding" between CDDEA and USAID, and that officials in Washington need to step in to impose a resolution to these problems."

CAA loves his USAID colleagues, wishing them well even to the extent that he mourns the ever-tightening and anaconda-like envelopment of USAID by the State Dept. It never fails to remind of the similar fate of USIA/USIS.

That being said, if D.C. is called upon to knock-heads on this issue, it's fated to go only one way.

"USAID personnel in Kabul chafe at the embassy's demands for lots of briefings and explanations of their financial management. They also feel like second-class citizens because the embassy doesn't provide them with the best housing and office space, the report said.

On the other hand, the embassy folks don't believe the USAID personnel are on board with the "whole of government" approach, the report states. They think USAID withholds information from them and sometimes creates political messes they are then forced to clean up."

Hmm. Color CAA unsympathetic about USAID personnel not getting the "best housing and office space" in a war zone.

7/27

re: "Counterinsurgency is not peeing on people…"

Peter Van Buren at We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People") rated this event as unhelpful to the counterinsurgency mission.

Money quote(s):

"The world is awash in urine-soaked statements by various idiots defending the Marines who peed on the bodies of dead Taliban. The defense is either a) the Taliban deserved it because they are our enemies or b) well, the Taliban have done worse things to us."

Just because the two defenses are completely true doesn't make them useful.

"The Taliban aren’t fighting a counterinsurgency war.

We are.

We are the invading foreigners trying to win the support of the people. Pissing on them is not a good way to do that.

This is part of the whole losing proposition of such war– we have to get it right (almost) all the time to have a shot at winning."

And therein lies the rub.

Dave Schuler addresses the root of this problem here. Take a few minutes and give it a look.

(CAA will still be here when you get back.)

_____

_____

_____

_____

Okay, back yet?

In the corporate world, in any business, you start with the basic question: what business are we in?

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

(It's not.)

It's the reason that lots of corporations (and government entities) have things called "mission statements." They're a good touchstone for determining if something you're considering attempting is something you should be attempting.

In questions of strategy, you face similar questions. What are our goals? What is the end-state we would like to see? What instruments of national power and influence can be brought to bear in support of this mission?

Mr. Schuler believes what CAA has long suspected: nation-building (and the related mission of counter-insurgency) in Afghanistan is not what the U.S. should have attempted there.

So while Brother Van Buren's points about the marine micturition incident (MMI) are on-point and well-taken, they may miss the larger targets. Indeed, much of U.S. policy over the past decade-plus may have done so.

1/13

re: "Obama and Foreign Policy: Just Kidding"

Robert J. Avrech at Seraphic Secret examined the foreign affairs portfolio as the final year of presidential campaigning begins.

Money quote(s):

"The hard-left are unhappy because Obama has failed to close Gitmo, has not withdrawn fully from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has expanded George Bush’s excellent policy of assassinating jihadists by drone. The left, in a hissy fit, might stay home in November."

Fortunately (from their perspective), there are plenty of hot-button Leftist red-herrings, er, domestic issues that can be interjected into the campaign in an effort to a.) energize the Democratic base; and b.) attempt to split the Republican's various constituencies.

"Europe, a collection of welfare states, is melting; the Arab Spring is an Arab Winter; and China is building a such a formidable military machine that our Joint Chiefs are waking up in a cold sweat at four in the morning.

And of course Israel is being squeezed by the genocidal yearning Persians, the genocidal yearning Palestinians, and the Turks who have lots of experience with genocide having murdered 1 million Armenians in 1915.

(The Armenians are still waiting for the Turks to admit their guilt, apologize, and pay reparations. Good luck with that.)

American power and influence in the Middle East is negligible. Witness the Palestinian’s defiance of US policy in favor of the UN’s poisonous embrace." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

None of these items has improved particularly since being written.

9/20

re: "Israel and South Sudan announce full diplomatic ties"

Robert Zeliger at PASSPORT ("A Blog by the Editors of FOREIGN POLICY") explained some of this development's significance.

Money quote(s):

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu officially recognized the new country a week before the U.N. voted to make it the 193rd state to be admitted to the world body, earlier this month."

A small country carved out of the territory of an aggressive Islamist hegemon. What could they possibly have in common?

"Israel, which has no relations with northern Sudan, has promised South Sudan economic help -- something it is in need of.

The Jewish state sees Africa as important diplomatic territory and has been offering economic aid and lucrative business deals in recent years -- including arms and agriculture -- in an attempt to counter Iran's growing clout on the continent. The effort is partially about votes in the U.N. -- Africa has 54 now. Iran has been trying to extend its outreach to African states like Senegal and Nigeria in an effort to counter its growing isolation in the West."

Israel is getting in on the ground floor with a country needing all sorts of nation-building expertise.

"Israel has another reason for wanting to establish ties with the new country. In recent years it has been flooded with thousands of refugees from Sudan -- people fleeing strife in both Darfur and South Sudan. They sneak into Israel through Egypt and have stirred debate about whether the country should be more or less welcoming. Already, since the announcement of new ties, the country's interior minister, Eli Yishai, has called on Israel to begin negotiations with South Sudan to return the refugees."

This is an angle I hadn't heretofore considered, but it touches on important domestic political and cultural issues that only reinforce what a win-win diplomatic strategy this is for Israeli.

7/28

re: "There Was Never a Country Called Palestine"

Jerrold L. Sobel at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") examined the historical question of Palestine in a quantitative fashion.

Money quote(s):

"There is no Palestinian land, plain and simple. If there were, when would it have been founded, and by whom? What would its borders have been, and what about the name of its capital? What would its major cities have been? What would have constituted the basis of its economy? What form of government would it have lived under?

Was Palestine ever recognized as an entity by another country? By whom? What was the language of the country called Palestine? What was Palestine's religion? What was the name of its currency? Since there is no such country today, what caused her demise?"

I got nothin'.

"Pose these same questions regarding Israel and Jewish connection to this land, and except for the willfully blind and delusional -- of which, admittedly, there are many, each can be factually answered.

At no time in history has there ever been a nation called Palestine. During the Ottoman Empire, which lasted from 1299-1922 CE, the land dubbed by the Romans as Palestine was controlled by the Turks; there was never an outcry for a Palestinian State then. During the illegal annexation of Judea and Samaria by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan subsequent to the 1949 Armistice and prior to 1967, there was never talk of "occupied territory" or a Palestinian State."

Still, the list of "nations" which have never had their own states is not a particularly short one. A further question would be under what conditions may (or should) such groups acquire their own nation-state?

2/12

re: "Nuke the News: Kill the Aliens Before They Kill Us"

Frank J. at IMAO ("Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated.") is for honesty.

Money quote(s):

"Isn’t staying staying in the country illegally a crime, hence the term “illegal”? I don’t know.

I wish the pro-illegal immigration crowd would be honest and just argue for open borders with no checks on anyone instead of this “we’ll keep saying its a crime and never enforce it” position. And that’s the main thing about the pro-illegal immigration people: Dishonesty. The way they’re always trying to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration shows they know they have an untenable position and want to do anything they can to avoid dealing with it head on. That’s why we have to keep the pressure on. We can’t give up America’s sovereignty just because some people think they have a great position to win votes."

CAA is a big fan of legal immigration and legal immigrants. Mainly because they, by definition, exhibit law-abiding behavior in the course of immigration to the U.S. What's not to like about that?

CAA is not professionally unaware of the inefficiencies and burdensome requirements incorporated into the processes and system (and CAA uses that term somewhat loosely) through which legal immigrants must navigate. But CAA is also professionally aware of the many frauds and other abuses those many obstacles are intended to discourage and prevent.

8/19

re: "Norwegian Lessons"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") drew some lessons from the Utoya Island shootings in Norway.

Money quote(s):

"Dressed in a police uniform, he called many of the youngsters on the island at a summer retreat to him and opened fire, eventually killing 86 and wounding—at the bombing and on the island--more than 90. His rampage was stopped when he was shot—he survived--by a police SWAT team, but it took approximately 90 minutes from the first shot until the police were able to find transportation and travel to the island."

As Mr. McDaniels notes further down in his post (see red bold type below), when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Sometimes lots of minutes.

"There was immediate speculation that the attack was another Jihadist outrage, which these days is far from an unreasonable assumption, but it seems that this attack was most similar to that in Tucson: the act of an evil man, acting alone in response to whatever demons pursued him."

Apparently SJS is not limited to those of the jihadist persuasion. There is no ideological or religious monopoly, after all, on either evil or madness.

"I'll provide only three primary lessons, though there are surely more.

(1) Gun free zones are deadly. In this case, the entire nation of Norway is essentially a citizen disarmament zone. Even though many Norwegians own firearms, even the police do not routinely carry handguns. Utoya island was very much like American schools: isolated, vulnerable, and completely unarmed. In school attacks, and in the attack on Utoya Island, the final body count will depend on the lack of marksmanship and the humanity of the killer(s), who will be stopped only by the intervention of armed police. Even in America, it takes far longer for the police to respond to such attacks than most people realize. When seconds count, it will take the police tens of minutes to arrive and longer to react. On Utoya Island, the killer—exploiting a dream Socialist gun-free zone--had approximately 90 minutes to roam the island at will, killing at a truly leisurely pace." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

In our own fair land, whose federalism has fostered over fifty (don't forget D.C.!) jurisdictions with their own particular interpretations of the Second Amendment, it's more than clear that the easier it is for ordinary law-abiding citizens to arm themselves, the lower the incidence of violent crime.

"(2) Evil exists. The left sees all things through a political lens. All motivations, all meaning may be found in political ideology. Socialist/Statist/Leftist ideology is infallible, so it can never be mistaken. It can never be wrong. Any problems along the way must be attributable to the existence of Conservatism, which keeps Socialism from working properly, or to the fact that not enough time has passed for a given Socialist policy to work properly, or as in the case of gun control issues, insufficient Socialism has been applied. Not until all firearms are in the loving hands of the state can the state protect individual citizens, despite the fact that the state has no obligation—or intention—to protect individual citizens.

Because all is political, morality—to the small degree that leftists recognize its existence, exists only in service to the preferred political narrative. Concepts such as good and evil have no meaning unless they are politically useful, such as evil being applied to those who oppose righteous Socialist policy, which is inherently good."

While I cannot personally vouchsafe the existence of Satan as an individual manifestation and personification of evil, it's more than clear to me that there is evil abroad in the world. The presence and persistence of evil acts, evil men (and women), and evil governments makes this inarguable.

"One need not be a Christian to believe in evil, for evil is manifested most meaningfully in acts, not words. The most revealing evidence of evil in despotism is not in the despot's writings and pronouncements, but in the millions of innocents they slaughter. On Utoya Island, the killer dressed as a policeman, and knowing that kids would not be alarmed by an armed policeman, called them to gather around him and betrayed their trust in the loving state by shooting them. He spent 90 minutes, taking his time, calmly walking about the island and shooting everyone he could find, killing 86 and wounding a great many more. He reloaded multiple times. If this was not evil, evil has no meaning." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"(3) One indisputable fact remains: If a single, capable innocent on that island was armed, the killer could have been stopped and nearly two hundred children would not have been wounded or killed. Life could have been preserved and evil defeated. Evil cannot be appeased or reasoned with; it must be confronted and destroyed.

This was not possible because of what Socialists would surely consider one of their greatest accomplishments, an achievement they would see as indisputable evidence of more advanced evolution, of more enlightened humanity: the more or less complete disarmament of an entire nation, including its police.

The media and Norwegian and American politicians sharing the same political and social views will be unable and unwilling to recognize or accept this final, simple truth. They will argue instead for even more disarmament of the law-abiding and innocent, and the suppression of political ideas with which they disagree, even in a country that has no First or Second Amendments, for all must be made to serve the narrative."

I can't improve on Mr. McDaniels words above.


7/25

re: "Marines May Face Prosecution For Peeing On Corpses"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ considered the motivations.

Money quote(s):

"The real crime was the felony stupid of videotaping it.

A lot of people seem upset by this. I think it's upsetting that now these guys are probably going to get cashiered over a stupid act. But the act itself doesn't really upset me.

The whole point of a rule against corpse desecration is that you show respect and honor to the fallen one. But what if that fallen one had been trying to kill you not ten minutes before, and in fact you had killed him before he killed you?"

Hmm. Actually, I'm not sure about the precise rationale for non-desecration as part of the law of warfare, but assuming Ace's reasoning is correct (and upon reflection, it probably is) it's not a stand-alone value. It's part-and-parcel of a larger set of values having to do with an adversary being a lawful combatant who follows the same (or a quite similar) set of values known collectively as the laws of war.

Little things like wearing a uniform, not targeting peaceful civilians, taking surrenders, treating prisoners humanely, behaving with honor, &tc.

(None of which is stuff the Taliban are particularly noted for.)

"I'm not sure there's any other way you can feel about a terrorist dirtbag who was just trying to kill you and your friends -- so you're not naturally going to feel that you should treat the corpse with respect.

Your training and discipline should kick in to supplement that and keep you from doing this, but your natural moral sense isn't there. Because, seriously, the hell with this terrorist."

1/13

re: "State Department Fixing the Facts Based on Policy"

Say or think what you want about Peter Van Buren 's wisdom in tilting at State Dept.'s windmills, at We Meant Well ("How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts And Minds of the Iraqi People") he made some on-target points about AmEmb Baghdad.

Money quote(s):

"The State Department can often times be so inward looking that it fixes the facts based on the policy need, making reality fit the vision whether that naughty reality wants to or not. Sometimes it’s funny, sometimes it can be tragic."

There is an institutional tendency at State to, as someone in the military might say, "fake it 'til you make it." Just keep talking the talk, and walking the walk, and perhaps others will follow.

(Other institutional tendencies include what I call "the full employment for ambassadors program" of opening or re-opening missions that we probably ought not, or at least not yet. Another is a forward-leaning bias towards making an agreement, signing a treaty, any agreement or any treaty, just to have something signed and on paper, irrespective of how good a deal it might be for the U.S.)

"(A)s the State Department rushes to replace all of the military support it needs to exist in still-dangerous Iraq without the Army, there are fears that the warping of reality may indeed endanger lives in Baghdad."

Brother Van Buren posted this in December (my apologies for the time-delay) so the previously-mentioned military support has vaporized. Gone. Pined for the fjords.

"Currently every item of food for the Embassy, from sides of beef to baby carrots, is procured in “safe” Kuwait and convoyed up to Baghdad. It is an expensive system, one that occasionally even entails the loss of life protecting boxes of Raisin Bran, but it has ensured the safety and cleanliness of the food for almost nine years.

The State Department, facing the crazy costs of this system without the nearly bottomless budget of the Defense Department, is once again swaying the facts to fit the policy. Undersecretary for Management Pat Kennedy told Congress in mid-November that seeking to cut costs in Iraq, State is looking to locally purchase some of the food its personnel will eat, breaking with the U.S. military’s practice of importing. Nothing has changed on the ground vis-a-vis food security, but to save money, State is warping that reality to fit its own needs."

Regular readers will note that this developing situation has already born somewhat bitter fruit (or lettuce) in terms of a tightening stranglehold on our Baghdad mission's logistics and support.

"Much has been made of State’s plan to hire over 5500 mercenaries as security guards for its Iraq-bound diplomats. However, while numbers do matter, the skills that those merc possess matter more. Currently in Iraq, with the US Army in place, a State Department convoy ambushed can call on a QRF, an Army quick reaction force. On standby 24/7, these soldiers are literally the cavalry that rides in to save the day."

"(M)ercenaries" is a bit of a loaded/pejorative term, which I believe is Br. Van Buren's intent. While technically correct on some levels, they might more accurately be called "auxiliaries" if the official terminology of "security contractor" seems to euphemistic.

That being said, he's quite correct in his larger point.

"There remain other concerns harder to nail down in an unclassified environment — security at the Baghdad Airport once control leaves U.S. hands, availability of a blood supply (another contractor, who will have to create a logistics schema with the Armed Services Blood Program) and proper trauma care for the diplomats (yet another contractor), particularly should someone suffer the horrific burns now too common in IED attacks. Under the military system, even during an attack, an injured soldier would receive first aid from a trained buddy, be helicopter evacuated from the site within minutes, stabilized at a specialized trauma unit and on a med flight to a hospital in Germany within an hour or two. While the danger on the ground in Iraq will remain the same (if not more dangerous given the lack of American troop presence), State in no way will be able to replicate the vast resources the military can bring to bear."

Allowing for the OBE ("overcome by events") nature of his observation (which is my fault, not his), these are all potentially fatal (and I mean that quite literally) vulnerabilities of our diplomatic mission in Iraq.

Whatever you might personally think of the wisdom of current (or past) U.S. policies in Iraq or of just how good an idea it is to have an embassy of this (or any) size there, or your possibly prejudiced views about diplomats in general, the ground truth there is that the U.S. has stationed civilian personnel overseas on its behalf, on your behalf, to be about America's business. The diplomats and other staff assigned in Baghdad (and other places in Iraq) are there because our elected government determined they must be there.

"State’s responses have been weak. Can’t travel safely outside the Green Zone? “The Embassy will attempt to mitigate the loss of tactical intelligence by establishing closer working relationships with the Government of Iraq.” Although Embassy medical plans do not currently include the capability for handling a mass casualty event, Embassy officials magic-wanded the problem away by stating that “even the US military’s current combat support hospital can be overwhelmed by a large enough number of casualties.” Meanwhile, State “will continue to explore possibilities for mitigating the impact of a mass casualty event.”

In other words, again the policy seems to be warping the reality on the ground. Only this time, it’s not politics, it’s personal, or maybe, without irony, personnel, at stake."

12/7

re: "Random CT Lesson from Norway #2: Carry Weapons"

Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report ("Sand people, get it?") discerned a counter-terrorism lesson from Norway's recent experience.

Money quote(s):

"The jihadis exploit our Constitution against us. So it's no surprise that a right-wing psychopath would exploit lefty anti-gun hysteria to further his irrational and evil plans"

It's basic Sun Tzu, after all, to avoid strength and attack weakness. And having a disarmed populace (including police) has to go into the "Weakness" column.

"We have much more gun violence here, but an atrocity of this scale is unthinkable in the US. Even if there were no feckless and unarmed police around had this asshole tried this anywhere in my neck of the woods he would have found a well armed citizenry ready to protect themselves and their children."

Just so.

7/25

re: "The State Department Staff at the Baghdad Embassy is Embarrassing Itself "

Jeff Emanuel at RedState ("the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill") made some fairly predictable snipes at State Dept. folks serving in Iraq.

Money quote(s):

"A Tuesday New York Times article called “U.S. Planning to Slash Iraq Embassy Staff by as Much as Half” purported to describe the plight of U.S. State Department employees in Iraq, whose diplomatic efforts are being rebuffed by a host nation and government that has little use for them." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA became somewhat, er, involved in the comment thread there.

What people don't understand is that perishables like fresh produce for the salad bar are the "canary in the coal mine" in terms of logistics and supply chains.

2/8

re: "Who's Afraid of Cain?"

Dr. Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog and Daybook") made some predictions and observations that have stood the test of a few months time.

Money quote(s):

"The reason for the increasing shrillness of the attacks is desperation: the liberal establishment has concluded that Obama is vulnerable, possibly even doomed, and of the Republican candidates only Romney appears to be someone they can work with, someone who can grow in office, who will reach across the aisle to continue liberal programs.

Note that Romney has nothing to do with the attacks on Cain. He’s just the guy the media consider to be the lesser of a number of evils. They can work with him."

Dr. Pournelle follows this observation with a reasonable man's analysis of the "charges" then being leveled against then-candidate Cain.

"Newt will be next. Then anyone else who isn’t Romney. The attack machine will be silent on Romney until he is the nominee. Then it will begin again, but it will be a different attack."

11/9

re: "Five myths about the policy-academy gap"

Peter Feaver at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") got to the nuts and bolts of the town vs. gown policy gap.

Money quote(s):

"(A) topic near and dear to my heart: the gap between academic political science and the policy world. This is a longstanding concern that has been the subject of much talk and some action my entire professional life. Since I am also a card-carrying yakademic (a term one of my National Security Council colleagues introduced to me back when I worked in the Clinton White House -- he always smiled when he said it so I am sure it was a term of endearment), I sympathize with much of what they and numerous others (see here and here) have to say."

"(Y)akademic." I love it!

"In my experience, academics are just as biased as, and in some cases more biased than, policymakers. Policymakers have a partisan bias, a worldview bias, and a policy commitment bias (eg., if a policymaker advocated for a policy initially he may be predisposed to support it despite evidence that it is faltering, and vice-versa).

Academics also have a partisan bias and a worldview bias. The chief difference is that academics tend to give jargon terms to their worldviews and they tend to reinforce them with an additional layer of method bias -- that is, viewing the world primarily through the narrow lens of whatever methodological tool they have mastered in the academy. Academics also have policy bias -- if they supported or opposed a policy" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Everyone has biases. Academics as much as policy-makers; nobody gets to pretend to an utterly detached and "objective" opinion. Good intelligence analysts identify their biases upfront.

"Academics have a further source of bias that is not as prevalent in the policymaker world: a skewed marketplace of ideas where the people they spend the most time arguing with come from a very narrow slice of the ideological spectrum."

The non-diversity of worldviews in academia has been done to death in certain circles. Which doesn't mean it isn't real.

"(M)ost of my academic international relations/security colleagues (that is people who do not focus on a specific country or region) do not have any firmer grasp on factual knowledge than the best people I have worked with in government; indeed, for reasons I get to below, they might even have less. What they can bring to the table, however, is a rigor that comes from making theoretical claims explicit and using appropriate methods to evaluate them. The very best academics also can bring to the table a healthy respect for the limits of their methods, and thus for the limits of the claims they and others can make. The chief difference in this regard between policymakers and academics is that policymakers use theory and method implicitly whereas academics use them explicitly (or at least they should)."

The line between academics and policymakers isn't as bright and shining as some would have you believe. Most policymakers, even if they were not tenured professors or even successful grad students, were at least trained by academics at the undergraduate level (or beyond).

And if they lack academic rigor and methodology, exactly whose fault is that?

"Academic research is a good contribution to the policy debate, but it hardly settles the matter (and, in this case, it would hardly surprise the policymaker who knows full well that Iran is unlikely to capitulate through economic sanctions alone). Policymakers have to factor in many more considerations than even very thorough academic research tends to weigh, such as: the need to cultivate political support for a policy line; the need to demonstrate that all avenues, even unpromising ones, have been explored; the need to sequence and/or link measures that an academic study might treat in isolation (or try to "hold constant" in the analysis); the need to consider the possibility that the immediate case might be the exception rather than the rule; and so on." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

7/25

re: "Action Figure Therapy"

Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes ("") remarked on a disconnect between civilian leadership (and military leadership at the policy-making level) and the troops.

Money quote(s):

"One of the objectives that it would be nice to see a SECDEF try to achieve, is to retain some semblance of respect from the troops. That is not a vital and minimalist goal, of course…you could say it is one for the Generals but not for the suits that hold civilian command over the armed forces…but it would be good if the working relationship was a good one, or if there was at least some effort expended to make it a good one."

Well, if you're planning to get-rid-of (i.e., "downsize," "re-engineer," or otherwise "rightsize" a lot of them anyway, what matter if you have a good relationship?

"I understand this argument about recruited-terrorists, how when these pictures appear it makes it look like the United States is declaring a war on Islam, which is not a perception we can afford to have out there. But there is something about this that I’m having a tough time figuring out: One, this would obviously be a vexing puzzle for us, and a dangerous one, far more important than many of the others. How do we expect to win at it, then, without discussing it more openly? Since 2004 the only rule that’s been in place about it is “just don’t do it” — with a strong undertone of don’t talk about it."

This has been an ongoing sore point with a lot of folks since just after the 9/11 national realization that someone is at war with us.

(And that we have real problems talking about or defining just who that someone might be.)

"(T)wo: Has it ever occurred to these geniuses that some may be reacting to situations like this with a quite reasonable attitude of “I’m not going to take you seriously if you don’t take yourself seriously”? There’s quite a lot to be said for a response, from the top, of: Look, if you don’t want your dead body defiled, don’t shoot at our guys."

Just so.

1/13

re: "Occupying Wall Street And The Leftist National Security Threat"

Paul Hair at Big Peace drew some lessons from intelligence failures of at least three sorts.

Money quote(s):

"One sentence in that paragraph leaves open the possibility that the intelligence community (IC) did its job in the lead-up to the Russian-Georgian conflict, but the rest of the paragraph indicates that the IC failed. And while the War College paper does not reflect the official position of the Army, Department of Defense, or U.S. government, its conclusion that the IC failed in issuing an adequate warning sounds similar to other accusations of the IC failing (September 11, Iran, the Egyptian Revolution, etc.)."

Calling something an "intelligence failure" is a pretty broad-brush statement. Among the various definitions of "intelligence" is that of the intelligence process or cycle. Intelligence can be both both a thing, a product, or more generally the process and function by which such products are, er, produced.

So it's important to consider which parts of the intelligence process, or which agencies within the IC may have failed.

Was it a failure of collection? Did we just not look in the right places, talk to the right people, or notice the right trends?

Was it a failure of analysis? Did we have the raw information or reports and just not recognize their significance? Did we downplay what turned out to be predictive or "big-up" what was deceptive or irrelevent?

Was it a failure of dissemination? Did the right intelligence just not get into the right hands? Were vital intelligence products "stove-piped" or "fire-walled" from getting to the analysts, commanders, policy-makers, or elected officials who needed them?

"So let’s accept the premise that the IC has repeatedly failed in recent years. Let’s forget that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—the head of the IC—states in its “National Intelligence: A Consumer’s Guide,” that intelligence cannot predict the future (Adobe page 11; actual page 19). Let’s also forget that we here at home cannot accurately predict who will or will not run for president, even as we have firsthand, easy, non-life-threatening access on a scale that invades the personal lives of the people whose minds we are trying to predict. Instead, let’s just accept the criticism that the IC should have predicted or warned of the threats and revolutions that have occurred in recent years. And in doing so, let us also apply this same standard of responsibility to our domestic watchdogs (law enforcement agencies, politicians, news media, talk show hosts, and political pundits) that should be monitoring homeland safety and security."

Too true. Real-life intelligence analysis is not predictive. It can, carefully, do a certain amount of forecasting, such as by analysis of alternative futures or outcomes. But that's not quite the same thing.

"(W)e have a growing group of people who overtly say that they want a revolution that overthrows our government. And as more powerful and wealthy figures and organizations back them, they now have the finances, resources, and means to act on their overtly stated desires. (See also what Daniel W. Drezner writes at Foreign Policy.)

So if the IC has been wrong during the past few years for not issuing sufficient predictions or warnings of the disasters and revolutions in other countries of the world, then surely the watchdogs of our nation must be held accountable for their continuing failure to issue adequate warning of just how dangerous the left is, and for their failure to take necessary investigative actions."

There's an old saying in Liberal/Progressive circles, to the effect that "there are no enemies on the Left." And to this day, many elected officials from the Democratic Party, as well as the unelected officials of our mainstream media, continue to act as if this were true.

It's not.

"We say that those who are violent and a threat are peaceful protestors or those with legitimate grievances because we cannot bring ourselves to acknowledge them as the barbarians that they truly are. Meanwhile, we demonize and persecute those who follow the law because we know we can get away with it—we know they won’t actually act like we accuse them of acting"

If there are certain "protected classes" based upon ethnicity, politics, or lifestyle, then the converse of there being certain groups upon whom it is always "open season" is also true.

After all, it's not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that gets their followers to strap themselves into suicide vests, beheads those who disagree, or promotes honor killings of teenagers or estranged wives.

"Or we deem Islam the Religion of Peace even as we demonize those opposed to the worldwide jihad as “Islamophobic” and “dangerous extremists.” And, of course, we deem those occupying Wall Street and other cities as people who are justifiably angry and thirsting for democracy even as we continue vilifying Tea Partiers and conservatives as violent and a threat to society."

10/11

re: "Lawfare & our enemies"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") considered the unwisdom of treating foreign unlawful combatants (i.e., war criminals) as if they were U.S. citizen offenders against federal criminal law (they may well be, but that's not the overriding consideration).

Money quote(s):

"The current administration is making some horrendous errors in its misguided quest to treat the terrorist threat against us as a civil police matter. They are dead set on trying captured terrorists with no ties to the US and who committed acts of terror far from our country in US courts. This will imbue them with all the rights and privileges of US citizens and sets up scenarios where the ghost of Johnnie Cochran is floating around NY courtrooms intoning "If the suicide belt does not fit, you must acquit". The cognitive dissonance of this foolishness is painful to contemplate and it has led to some of the most convoluted maneuvering imaginable."

7/25

re: "State Dept to Baghdad employees: Stop “whining” about the salad bar"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside The Foreign Policy Machine") is following the Arugula-Gate story.

Money quote(s):

"The State Department in Washington has a message for the 16,000 employees at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad: If you can't get arugula in the cafeteria, just deal with it and stop complaining to the New York Times." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Note that this mention of "arugula" comes from the Department of State, or at least press coverage of the Department of State, in Washington, D.C.

"According to the Times, embassy employees and contractors are so restricted from doing things in Iraq, it has become a waste of money to keep them there. The story contained many gripes from embassy staff, whose supply chains have been disrupted due to the departure of all U.S. troops in December.

"Within days [of the troop pullout], the salad bar at the embassy dining hall ran low. Sometimes there was no sugar or Splenda for coffee. On chicken-wing night, wings were rationed at six per person," the Times reported."

Chicken wings. Sugar. Splenda. Salad. So "arugula" is not mentioned in the NYT article?

""Does the State Department consider, you know, not enough arugula to be a hardship in Iraq?" one reporter asked."

Ah, so this "arugula" is something that a reporter first brought up, at a Washington, D.C., press conference at the State Dept.

Funny, isn't it, that although the first mention of this "arugula" stuff is by some journalist back stateside, it's the embassy staff in Baghdad who're being pilloried for their fancy-schmantzy tastes in salad bar fixings.

Take a look at the folks in the picture illustrating Mr. Rogin's article. Take a look at those faces, in particular the beefy guy (he's got "security" written all over him) on the far left of the picture.

Do any of these people look like "arugula" eaters? Do any of these people look like they could pick "arugula" out of a selection of lettuce varietals?

Can anyone give me the rough distance (miles, kilometers, or nautical miles are acceptable) from our embassy in Baghdad and the Whole Foods store where that unnamed reporter does his (or her) shopping?

2/8

re: "Some Americans are beginning to get it"

Dr. Helen Szamuely at Your Freedom and Ours ("A blog about politics and other things... ...but always from the right perspective.") welcomes Americans to their dawning realization.

Money quote(s):

"By and large, American attitude to the European project has varied from "not all that interested" through "you guys need to get your act together" whenever some American interest was hit to "great idea this unification if only it could be done the right way". I exaggerate but only a little though I do have a number of friends on the other side of the Pond who long ago grasped that the European Union was a very bad idea, ought never to have happened but now that it has, ought to be got rid of and Britain ought to take her rightful place within the Anglosphere"

The Anglosphere is an interesting topic and I think the notion sheds some light on why the "European project" hasn't (or isn't) resulting in the United States of Europe so desired by many of the Brussels persuasion.

(For those unfamiliar with the term, the "European project" refers to the ever-closer union-ing that's taken a coal & steel market to today's European Union.)

The Thirteen Colonies, for all their squabbling problems, had one thing that Europe has never had: a common language.

"(W)hat will come after "Europe" will be Europe without quotation marks. You know, the one that has been around for some time and has produced quite a few good ideas as well as a large number of bad ones."

Europe isn't going anywhere this side of a supernova or major asteroid impact.

How united it will be, or even how European it will remain, are different sets of questions.

"The outright fraud was there from the very beginning. Indeed, the fictions he lists, which some of us have been writing about for more years that we care to admit to, are inherently impossible without fraud.Nevertheless, this is quite a big step forward in our fight to make the truth known in the United States. Now, all we need is an understanding of it in Britain."

Blessedly, Great Britain never fully succumbed, at least to the point of joining the common currency, to the continental madness.

9/20

re: "Our Wars of Choice Harm our Interests"

Joerg Wolf at Atlantic Review ("A Press Digest for Transatlantic Affairs") noted some opining at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Atlantic Council.

Money quote(s):

"Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, calls for a doctrine of restoration that "would help the U.S. shore up the economic foundations of its power." He is basically urging more limited foreign policy engagements, which would mean that the US should act more like the European countries."

"(M)ore limited foreign policy engagements"? Like putting an expiration date on our engagement with NATO, the UN, &tc.?

(I begin to suspect that, despite the big brains that the CFR is able to finagle articles for their periodical, Foreign Affairs, the CFR may not require so much brain-wattage in its officers.)

"An interesting additional argument against wars of choice is the message that the Libya war sends to Iran, North Korea and other rogue regimes who contemplate getting nuclear weapons: "An unnoted consequence of the NATO military effort to topple the Gaddafi regime may be any hope of eventual denuclearization of North Korea or Iran," writes Banning Garrett, director of the Atlantic Council's Strategic Foresight Project"

Garrett hit this right on the head.

7/23

re: "The Nature of Warriors...."

Deebow at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") has a soldier's eye for historical perspective on warfare.

Money quote(s):

"Wars and battle are ugly things. The very insides of the dark side of humanity and the razor thin margins of how close we come to being animals when we fight our enemies rises to the very top for all to see. It is not pretty and it is not polite. When you fight an enemy that prefers death to surrender and straps bombs to little children and records it for posterity to blast out all over the world wide web, you need to start fighting a little fire with fire. Spending every day with death tugging at your elbow while, in some cases, watching your men die, some of them good friends. Seeing this happen right in front of you every day can lead to a thirst for revenge and pay back those life debts that few will ever know."

Into each dead terrorist's violently-ended life a little rain, or something, may fall.

One aside: what's the "correct' procedure for enemy remains handling/disposal in Afghanistan? Do we FedEx or DHL them to the nearest U.S. Navy ship for the appropriate funeral rites, a la UBL?

It would be a shame if friendly graves registration folks had to get any USMC urine on them.

"Al-Reuters has their panties firmly bunched because they think this might stir anti-American sentiment after a decade of war. Really? This is what is gonna lose the war for us? The fact that we are attempting to satisfy these subhuman POS's from the 7th Century who behead those who will not comply tells me just how far we have fallen down the rabbit hole.

The nature of warriors is something that only warriors will ever know. Those that have never experienced this will never know why these men felt the need to do what they did. But if our military is going to be effective in the long run, our enemies must fear us. They must believe that we are capable of unspeakable evil and every now and then, we have to pull back the curtain a little and let them see a smidgen of what we are holding the lid on while we bomb them further into the stone age. That fear of what those warriors are capable of will save lives.

Was it wrong for these Marines to do this? Sure. Was there a breakdown in leadership? No Doubt. Do I understand with 100 percent certainty why they did it? Absolutely." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

1/12

re: "State Department Seeks Advisors for South Sudan Armed Forces Transformation"

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") shared a State Dept. solicitation for a job overseas.

Money quote(s):

"Not only has the State Department got itself a new private army in Iraq, we now will also be training and mentoring the Ministry of Defense of the world’s newest country.

I’m sure we’re all relieved to learn about this."

Calling what AmbEmb Baghdad has in the way of security contractors a "private army' is a bit of a stretch, but let that lie for now.

8/18

re: "The Closers Part VI: Dealing with the U.S. Military"

Colonel Gary Anderson at the Small Wars Journal ("contributed work from across the spectrum of stakeholders in small wars") identified a real problem and offered some help at solving it.

Money quote(s):

"Many of the civilians who gravitate to counterinsurgency (COIN) work for the Departments of State and Justice have some knowledge of the military or have served in uniform. But many people from other agencies will not have such a background. Suddenly living among the military on a daily basis, and often depending on them totally for security can come as a culture shock that is almost as great as that experienced by stepping into a host nation's culture. It helps to come somewhat prepared. The Provincial Reconstruction Team classes given by the State Department's Foreign Service Institute are good but short, and they give out excellent advice, but it would help if you do homework on your own. This piece will attempt to give some background and perspective."

Read the entire, helpful, article.

Bonus quote(s):

"If they come to trust you, your military counterparts will ask you to share information gained in your interactions with the population. I have known civilian representatives from some agencies that had come to view themselves as quasi NGOs, and were reluctant to share information with their military counterparts, apparently seeing themselves in a neutral NGO-like status. Make no mistake about it, when you swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States as a government official or sign a contract with the government as a consultant, you have already taken sides. The insurgents will view you as the enemy, and the population will see you as a representative of our government. You need to accept that responsibility."

"Soldiers, in combat zones (and out of them) use a lot of profanity; it helps them to relieve the stress. If you are offended, I’d suggest keeping it to yourself. "

&

"Conclusion

If you do not have military experience, it is best to treat the military as you would any foreign culture by respecting its mores and customs, and learn as much as you can." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)


7/22

re: "February 11"

Thanks to John Brown at Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, Version 2.0 ("particularly interested in the relationship between public diplomacy and propaganda") for the mention and the quote:

"PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

The State Department Staff at the Baghdad Embassy is Embarrassing Itself - Jeff Emanuel, redstate.com: "So the wizards at State has suddenly realized that constructing a 104-acre, $750,000,000.00 embassy complex and building up the embassy staff to 16,000 people (including 2,000 diplomats and several times more contractors), without running either by the Iraqis first, 'may have been ill advised.' [Comment by] Consul_At_Arms ... Embassies are the U.S. government representation in a foreign country. They house not only an ambassador and various State Dept. functions (consular, management, political, economic, and public diplomacy) and the activities (communication, security, etc.) necessary to support them, but various 'tenant agencies' housed along with them. Overseas, those range from the routine (IRS, FAA, GSA, military attaches and liaison/assistance officers) to the exotic (DEA, Marshal Service, Library of Congress). Much of the Baghdad mission is likely (I have no personal knowledge of this) engaged in various USAID and other development/reconstruction activities with the Iraqis." "

re: "Palestine, Back to the Future"

Ted Belman at American Thinker ("a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans") sidestepped the issue of mythological nationhood and lunges for a solution.

Money quote(s):

"There was a time when the lands now known as Israel (including Judea and Samaria and Gaza) and Jordan were called "Palestine." In fact, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 declared that "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

There followed considerable cooperation between the Jews, represented by Chaim Weizmann, and the Arabs living in Mespotamia, now Iraq and Jordan, represented by Emir Feisal. As a result, the Feisal-Weizman Agreement was signed in January 1919, in which it was agreed that the Jews would get the lands lying west of the Jordan River watershed to the Mediterranean."

Fast forward to the end of World War I and Allied disposition of the Ottoman Empire's non-Turkish possessions.

"What remained was for the League of Nations to draw up the Palestine Mandate. Originally, the boundaries of Palestine included what is now Jordan, but a few months prior to the Palestine Mandate being passed by the League of Nations in September 1922, the Jews were told that they must consent to the removal of Jordan from the Jewish homeland if they wished the Mandate to be passed. And so they did, under duress."

Consider this slice one of a salami-slice strategy.

"Britain severed all lands lying east of the Jordan River from the Palestine Mandate and gave the lands to the Hashemites. It was first renamed Transjordan and then just Jordan."

So an Arab homeland was salami-sliced off of overall-Palestine, leaving a Jewish homeland.

(From which additional future Arab homelands may be sliced.)

"There followed many resolutions, wars, and peace processes, all designed to erode Jewish rights to the land described in the Palestine Mandate, and all to no avail. For all intents and purposes, the peace process is dead, and Abu Mazen, otherwise known as Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PA, has refused to negotiate for the last three years.

This futile effort has resulted in a search for alternate solutions. Newt Gingrich went public with his newsworthy statement that "[w]e've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community." Gov Romney did him one better and said, "It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the State of Israel." Didn't they know that in our PC world, one is not supposed to declare that the emperor has no clothes? The fiction underlying the failed peace process is more important than the truth."

It's truly remarkable to see such prominent politicians depart from the popular narrative in this manner.

"The "Jordan is Palestine" solution has been mooted for decades. It is now gaining traction due in part to the Arab Spring, which began a year ago. Jordan now is feeling the tremors. The majority of Palestinian leaders in Jordan favor Jordan becoming a democratic/secular state. They have watched in dismay as similar forces in Egypt were overwhelmed by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists. They are determined not to share Egypt's fate. They are led by Mudar Zahran, the author of "Jordan's King and the Muslim Brotherhood: An Unholy Marriage." "

Consider that the majority of people in Jordan are indistinguishable from "Palestinian" Arabs in any appreciable fashion. And that's not counting the ones who are descended from those who left the Jewish homeland or the "Occupied Territories" of the West Bank and Gaza.

"The rationality and achievability of this solution need no elucidation. The solution itself needs only for the U.S. to get behind it. While such an initiative by the U.S. would be a departure from the position it has held since the founding of the State of Israel, it would not be a departure from her original position."

1/29

re: "Preventing Pearl Harbor"

George Smiley at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") commemorated America's most famous intelligence failure.

(Remember that operations are always successful; if they're not successful, then there was a failure of intelligence.)

Money quote(s):

"(C)ould the attack have been prevented, sparing the lives of 2,000 Americans who died on that fateful December day in 1941. While war clouds had been gathering for years before the Japanese strike, supporters of FDR claim that neither the President, nor his senior advisers, had any direct knowledge of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor, and could not provide definitive warning to Admiral Husband Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short, the senior Navy and Army commanders in Hawaii.

Still, there is plenty of evidence that U.S. intelligence was aware the Japanese fleet was on the move in late 1941, and might carry out a strike against American possessions in the Pacific."

George details for us a lot of that intelligence.

"Pearl Harbor was clearly at the top of Japan's potential target list, but raids on the Philippines, Alaska, Wake Island and Guam couldn't be ruled out. So, U.S. commanders in the Pacific faced the daunting challenge of locating the Japanese fleet, across millions of miles of open seas."

All of these potential targets were eventually attacked, and at least portions invaded and seized (including part of Alaska's Aleutian Islands chain).

"(T)here is one incontrovertible fact: the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor could have been easily prevented, had President Roosevelt followed the advice of his previous Pacific Fleet commander, Admiral J.O. Richardson. During his tenure as CINCPAC, Richardson repeatedly warned of his fleet's vulnerability at Pearl Harbor, and requested that most of his ships return to their home port in San Diego. When FDR refused, Richardson stuck to his guns and paid a high price: he was fired as CINCPAC in early 1941 and replaced by Admiral Kimmel."

There's a price, sometimes, in being prematurely correct.

Richardson's memoir included this passage, from a message to the chief of naval operations:

"(T)he probable cost (human and physical resources) of any war should be compared [with] the probable value of winning the war."

Clearly Adm. Richardson was a strategic thinker and had read his Clausewitz.

"Sadly, only World War II buffs and naval historians are familiar with the courageous stand of J.O. Richardson. At the cost of his own career, Admiral Richardson stood on principle, trying to avert a military disaster that he believed could be averted, by returning the fleet to San Diego and engaging in the preparations needed to ready the Navy for war.

Richardson's integrity and candor offer an important lesson for military leaders--or anyone in a position to advise decision-makers. Even in that rarefied air, it is essential to tell "the boss" what they need to hear--not what they want to hear. Admirlal Richardson did just that, realizing his advice might fall on deaf ears and result in his dismissal. It's regrettable that so many of his peers failed to follow his shining example in the days before Pearl Harbor."

Tell the truth as you see it, interpret the facts you know as best you can, don't shade or flavor unpalatable truths to fit the preconceived notions or prejudices of your superiors, and let those above you, with access to a presumably wider range of sources and methods, decide on the basis of a fuller scope of information.

12/7

re: "Golden Shower Boarding"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VWRC.") had some strong words for the weak-willed.

Money quote(s):

"(T)he outrage, OUTRAGE is deafening across the blogosphere. How could they so disrespectfully treat the noble bodies of our valiant enemies??? It’s not like any one of the cadavers, prior to their overdue assumption of room temperature, might have been strapping bombs to little girls, beheading captive infidels with rusty scimitars or blowing up nuns. Oh, wait…

Of course CAIR, the unindicted front organization for pisslamic terrorism, is howling like stuck pigs which, needless to say, is music to our ears. Nothing that makes them scream like little bitches can possibly be a Bad Thing™. If you haven’t yet pissed off those fifth columnist swine, you’re not doing it right, so get your shit together already!"

CAIR is sort of the mirror-effect for actual, red-blooded, patriotic Americans. Pretty much anything they're against, you should be in favor of.

(Of course, the "broken-clock" rule of being right twice a day may still apply, but I haven't seen it happen yet.)

"(N)ow that the video has been leaked, the Corps pretty much has to pretend to give a shit. Our only hope is that they follow the mold of the Royal Danish Army and announce, five minutes after having promised a full investigation, that they have found, after a thorough review and interview with all parties involved, that the video doesn’t prove anything conclusively so, move along. Nothing to see here. Yes, that is the way it’s done over there. And once Army High Command states that there’s nothing to see, there is. nothing. to. see.

It’s our way over there of saying: “Dear hyperventilating civilians who sent us over here to get shot at, blown to shreds and otherwise inconvenienced in utterly brutal ways so that you could stay safe and snug in bed at home: War is nasty, brutal and ugly. That is why you send us to do it so you won’t get your hands dirty. If you don’t like how we perform your bidding, you are welcome to come take over. We wouldn’t dream of standing in your way. So put up or shut up, please. Warm regards from the ones whom you sent, because we sure as fuck didn’t write our own marching orders. Have a nice day and, by the way, YOU’RE WELCOME!” " (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Armchair criticism from those who've never had, and never will have, "skin in the game" is neither welcome nor appreciated. That goes double for those who actively work to have our side lose.

"(T)he very bottom line: The Armed Forces don’t ask to be sent, they’re sent by the very same hypocrites who, when confronted with the harsh realities of a situation that they didn’t have the guts to deal with themselves, get the vapors and call for the persecution of those whom they sent. I spit on them. If they don’t like what they demand done in their names by better men than they can ever hope to be, they can just not issue the order to go.

War ain’t bean bag, and those on the sharp, brutal, life-threatening end of the spear can’t be expected to behave like good Catholic Choir Boys in the midst of death, danger and mayhem. You drop somebody in a toxic environment, toxic behavior is going to ensue and, as long as that behavior doesn’t include brutal treatment of innocents I couldn’t care less if I studied Advanced Indifference at Don’t Give a Shit University for two decades.

To those who still don’t get it, I repeat the offer: Suit up and go show the rest of us brutes how it’s done. Go teach the world to sing in perfect harmony while your buddies, your brothers whom you know better than anybody in the world and with whom you’ve gone through hell on earth, are getting shot, blown up, mutilated and brutalized all around you. You go do that and show us backwards Neanderthals how to maintain your cheery disposition and fair and open-minded behavior towards those who murdered the guy you went through The Suck™ with, his brains getting splattered all over your face. Please. DO IT!
Or shut the fuck up." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

John Adams (in a letter to his wife Abigail dated May 12, 1780) wrote:

"I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty
to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine."

Sadly, we must still study war and politics, although generations past have been successful enough at those that many may study instead the less-bloody sciences. The most vociferic (and fluff-headed) critics apparently passed on all that and seem to have studied non-sciences undreamed of in Founder Adams' day.

"(D)on’t anybody give us the old tired “this is only going to inflame the Hajjis further and help their cause” line, will you? Because we were getting along just dandy up until now, weren’t we?" (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Sadly, the culture of perpetual tribal offense would find grounds for grievance if they were hanged with a golden rope. Piss on 'em.


1/12