Saturday, 24 December 2005

Lubricating the Wheels of Idiocy


Blowback: when your actions lead to unintended consequences.

In 2003 the number of terrorist incidents jumped to their highest number in 20 years, in 2004 that figure tripled, figures for 2005 are on their way. Don't hold your breath. Today's insurgents in Iraq are tomorrow's terrorists? Maybe, parallels with Afghanistan can be drawn but the only comparison many people seem to be making is Vietnam.

I've just finshed reading an interesting essay by Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense under Nixon from 69-73 who orchestrated the US army withdrawl from Vietnam and the empowerment of South Vietnam troops; the kind of thing that Rumsfield hopes to be doing. I'd like to share a few of his thoughts with you, they prove to be quite stimulating on the matter of American foreign policy and it's demand for futile, short-term solutions rather than a long-term investment.

"The resulting legacy [of Vietnam]...has left the United States timourous about war, deeply averse to intervening in even a just cause and dubious of its ability to get out of a war once it is in one. [The Vietnam War] is used as thier bully pulpit to mold an isolationist American foreign policy...Those who wallow in such Vietnam angst would have us be not only reticent to help the rest of the world but ashamed of our ability to do so and doubtful of the value of spreading democracy and of the superirity of freedom itself."

One of his most intriguing statements relates to the politicians role within a time of war: "I cannot speak for the dead or the angry. My voice is that of a policymaker, one who once decided which causes were worth fighting for, how long the fight should last and when it was time to go home." Another on the impact of war reporting on the people back home: "Had the mothers and fathers of US soldiers serving in World War II seen a real-time CNN report of D-day in the style of Saving Private Ryan, they might not have thought Europe was worth saving."

Some food for thought before we gorge ourselves...

7 comments:

  1. the last two arguments are an example of an Irrelevant conclusion fallacy, for he drives you to conclusions after having exposed irrelevant/single-sided evidences.

    his role as a policy maker isolates the public completely from why he starts the war and how he manages their affairs in the first place. the second statement takes that isolation for granted and uses another fallacy to favor it, all while suggesting that all other issues are just natural phenomena(imperialism, glob., secret operations, extreme poverty,...etc)

    It works, but not for a critical mind, something which takes learning but is intrinsic in few people, the rest don’t learn it at school :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very interesting. I just learned a little something. Thanks, hon!

    Merry Christmas to you and Marie!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a model of scientifically managed warfare, which does not have victory as an option of conflict resolution. It was developed by the Rand Corporation during the 1950s, in response to the National Security Council's Directive 68.

    NSC 68 was the first official document to "recognise" the post-WII opportunity for America to literally take over the world. However, the Korean conflict demonstrated that ownership of territory was too costly.

    The disintegration of empires historically has always come down to inefficiency at the provincial-municipal level. NSC 68 is the key to a new form of warfare, where "winning" is not the point, but merely "dominating."

    Dominating a region, which means raping its economy, requires only that the occupying army manage itself. The "Vietnamization" of local militaries is a cost-saving measure to prevent the "non-conqueror" from having to administer local justice, and waste resources.

    Neo-collonialism isn't really the exact term for it, as colonies had local representatives who were nationals from the invading country. As well, colonies are usually run according to the laws of the conqueror's country.

    In a modern American war, para-localisation leaves all of the expensive duties to the people who are being sucked dry of resources, while leaving the appearance that an honest effort is being made to normalise the indigenous society.

    The insurgency in Iraq is akin to the actions of the Viet Minh and Vietcong. Interestingly, while the Soviets were training the North Vietnamese Army, divisions of these professional-grade soldiers weren't rushed in to amplify the overall effectiveness of the insurgents until it was too late to repel the "Coalition of the Willing" troops.

    If one were cynical, it could almost seem like the Soviets as well did not have victory as a condition of conflict resolution, and that their own economy was benefitting by the tittilation of their military-industrial complex.

    After Vietnam was properly sucked dry, and soaked with toxic chemicals, and only after the insurgents were for the most part wiped out, did the professional NVA come out in force.

    Almost as if making it look like they had to put on a show so as not to appear like they were running away, the Soviet and American governments gradually "orchestrated" their nations' disentanglement with the countrys they promised to help, which promises were made on the strength their own national "philosophies," (if rape and pillage can be said to require thought).

    Interestingly, new weapons are appearing in the Iraq war, which can kill the unkillable M1 tanks. This strongly suggests a modern military power has developed them, and sorry folks, Iran just doesn't fit the bill.

    With the leadership of the insurgency being trained in underground facilities in the United States itself, if you can believe it, one does not need to imagine much to see how contrived the whole Iraq situation really is.

    What leap of the imagination can it be to believe that Russia and/or China are training the North Iraqi Army, who, when the "patriotic" insurgents have been decimated, will come in and make every world power filty richer, ruin Iraq completely, and cause enough distraction in the media for the gluttons to split up the oil, coal and gold behind everyone's back?

    Merry Christmas to all. I guess...

    ReplyDelete
  4. on average, the typical US citizen is an isolationist. They prefer to let others go there own way. One of the greatest congressional mistakes since WW II was the War Powers Act which enables presidents to jump into foreign adventures with out the legislative consideration intended in the constitution. I am hoping they (congress) does not show the same stupidity with the Patriot Act

    ReplyDelete
  5. just read your NY posts..CONGRATULATIONS!!

    ReplyDelete

Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.