A little research I was doing yesterday brought me across some stuff on Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and it made me think about how different things could have been…
I have in the past expressed the opinion that the US should have taken the gloves off and gone after the real wellspring of (Wahabbi) terrorism. That’s right, the Kingdom of Saud, not Baathist Iraq.
What if, for example someone had done that for us back in 1990/1? At the time it looked like a bad idea, all that oil under the control of one nasty dictator. I’ll engage in a bit of blatant hindsight to show how that might have been the lesser of at least two evils.
Say Saddam Hussein had rolled right over the border into Saudi Arabia before G.H. Bush had lifted the bulk of the US Army into that sandy corner of arrested development; what’s the worst that would happen?
Well, the Saudi family would be dispossessed, all 25,000 of them. Crying shame really, but the effects on the world could be a lot more far-ranging than a few thousand dispossessed princelings. I suspect that Saddam’s secret police would sweep trough the place and uproot anything they thought might be a threat. This would naturally include any fundamentalist religious groups that could be a base of resistance to the Baathist New Order.
The financial underpinning of all those Wahabbi/Salafist madrassas would be removed, with a corresponding drop in the number of young men brainwashed into that particular cult of death. Osama bin-Laden would likely be strapped for cash, and al-Qaeda would be on a bit of a shoestring. I doubt it would stop them, but they wouldn’t have the resources they did as of 9/11/2001, and just maybe their attention would have been elsewhere…
As for that oil that we (presently) need so badly? Well, I’m sure that Saddam could be convinced to sell it to us, and a few US carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf could help those negotiations. Saddam could no more hold (now non-Saudi) Arabia against the Americans than he held Kuwait. From another angle, those CTFs could be there to keep the Iranians from getting any ideas after we cut a deal with “Greater Iraq”.
Yes, human rights would still be in the toilet in the Middle East, but how is that different from now? We would have removed the supposed root of bin-Laden’s hatred of the US by not having any US troops in the cradle of Islam, and avoided Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom (maybe). Iran could be contained (something we need to do now) and the US wouldn’t be bankrupting itself in major military operations.
At this point we have to take a good hard look at our interests. Sure, concentrating that large a proportion of the world’s proven oil reserves in the hands of one man wouldn’t be the best thing ever. But the spread of secularism, not democracy would have been accomplished, and I argue that this is much more in the West’s long-term interests in that region than democracy is.
Democracy is for countries that have fought and bled specifically for it, and it can’t be imposed on anyone who hasn’t. One of these days we’re going to have to get off our high horse and accept that there are things that liberalism can’t do to people who really don’t want it. I’m not holding my breath for that day.
Thursday 30 November 2006
Friday 24 November 2006
Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense
Louise Arbour is at it again:
'Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.
"In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said. "But how can you compare that with a case where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable? The culpability or the intent may not sound as severe, but the actual harm is catastrophic." '(Jerusalem Post)
If she really thinks this way, I'm distressed (though not surprised) that she was ever responsible for making the laws of this country.
I can get behind the idea that trying to slaughter civilians (full stop, not part of a specific military op) is "very bad". However, the idea that it's criminally "reckless" to engage legitimate military targets if there happen to be civilians there, and that this is worse than "very bad" is not merely a crock, it's illogical. I don't imagine that I'm alone in feeling that murderous intent is no less "bad" for not being executed very effectively.
To me this suggests that she has lost all touch with reality, and I will refer you back to some previous posts of mine dealing with the Laws of Armed Conflict and with Ms Arbours' fecklessness on this subject.
As a parting shot, I would like ask Louise Arbour one question: if the Islamist scum that you keep enabling ever do take over, what chance is there for another woman to ever rise to a position of (self) importance like yours?
PS: if you can work out the relation of the title to the subject matter of this piece you'll have a bit of a window into the circuitous workings of my mind. If not, rest assured that it makes sense to me. ;)
'Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.
"In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said. "But how can you compare that with a case where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable? The culpability or the intent may not sound as severe, but the actual harm is catastrophic." '(Jerusalem Post)
If she really thinks this way, I'm distressed (though not surprised) that she was ever responsible for making the laws of this country.
I can get behind the idea that trying to slaughter civilians (full stop, not part of a specific military op) is "very bad". However, the idea that it's criminally "reckless" to engage legitimate military targets if there happen to be civilians there, and that this is worse than "very bad" is not merely a crock, it's illogical. I don't imagine that I'm alone in feeling that murderous intent is no less "bad" for not being executed very effectively.
To me this suggests that she has lost all touch with reality, and I will refer you back to some previous posts of mine dealing with the Laws of Armed Conflict and with Ms Arbours' fecklessness on this subject.
As a parting shot, I would like ask Louise Arbour one question: if the Islamist scum that you keep enabling ever do take over, what chance is there for another woman to ever rise to a position of (self) importance like yours?
PS: if you can work out the relation of the title to the subject matter of this piece you'll have a bit of a window into the circuitous workings of my mind. If not, rest assured that it makes sense to me. ;)
Saturday 18 November 2006
RIP: George Blackburn, MC
The news item gives the big picture, but I had the chance to meet him a few weeks ago. I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity, and men of his generation are passing quickly these days. I've had the chance to meet a number of WW2 veterans, (my grandfathers included of course) and if any of you are interested in a more active connection with that bit of history I suggest you talk to some of these guys before the opportunity passes forever.
George's books are highly recommended (and not just by me), and tell a remarkable story of a normal man who managed to beat the odds of a very dangerous front-line job (Artillery Forward Observation Officer or FOO) and survive longer in that position in NW Europe than pretty much anybody else. This is a link to an item on George and his wartime signaller Mel Squissato (whom I also had the pleasure to talk to a few weeks back) in The Netherlands last year.
He had a good run, and had a lot of "fans" in the Canadian military and elsewhere, so I'd say it was a life well-lived and he departed on as good a note as possible. The memorial service is in Ottawa today, and although I can't be there I'm sure it will be well attended. He will be remembered, as will all of our soldiers who didn't (and won't) make it home, just as George himself wished.
George's books are highly recommended (and not just by me), and tell a remarkable story of a normal man who managed to beat the odds of a very dangerous front-line job (Artillery Forward Observation Officer or FOO) and survive longer in that position in NW Europe than pretty much anybody else. This is a link to an item on George and his wartime signaller Mel Squissato (whom I also had the pleasure to talk to a few weeks back) in The Netherlands last year.
He had a good run, and had a lot of "fans" in the Canadian military and elsewhere, so I'd say it was a life well-lived and he departed on as good a note as possible. The memorial service is in Ottawa today, and although I can't be there I'm sure it will be well attended. He will be remembered, as will all of our soldiers who didn't (and won't) make it home, just as George himself wished.
Monday 13 November 2006
It's the UN so it must be a good idea!
Yes, another council of concerned dignitaries will solve all of our ills! So all we have to do is resolve the Arab-Israeli thing and change almost every single government in the Muslim world. Should take a week or two...
Well that was subtle. As for the premise:
'They say that the critical symbol of discord is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, along with Western military interventions in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, contributes significantly to the growing sense of resentment and mistrust that mars relations among communities.
"Moreover, the perception of double standards in the application of international law and the protection of human rights is increasing resentment and the sense of vulnerability felt by many Muslims around the globe," the report says.'
I have a few issues with this view. First, the Israel thing is a result of the failure of the Arabs/Muslims to manage their own interests, since they had plenty of opportunity in the first 10 years of the existance of Israel to obliterate it, and they couldn't pull it off. It looks like the Iranians are gearing up to directly join the effort to wipe out the only true democracy in the ME, so stay tuned for the end result.
I won't touch Iraq, except to say that nobody forced the locals to start slaughtering each other as soon as the Baathists were overthrown, and the fact that they're doing so is NOT the Americans' fault.
Afghanistan. Well, we could have ignored a blatant terrorist training base and the government that supported it, but strangely that doesn't seem like a viable option. The same people who carp about "Western military intervention" don't seem to make note of the attempts to rebuild the country and give it a functional government. What exactly is the message we're supposed to come away with here?
In the past I've advocated just smashing things as a warning to cease and desist. This has been frowned upon by many as being counter-productive in the long run, and I have been able to see their perspective. Increasingly I'm not convinced I'm wrong.
If trying to change governments in what we perceive to be the best interest of the subject peoples is just going to generate charges of, well whatever you can imagine, then WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER?
Leaving them be is a bad idea, since we're obviously despised as the infidel pigs that we are, so a little power projection can convince them that the Crusader-Zionist conspiracy is best left unprovoked.
Islam as a religion isn't a particular threat to Western society. However, unlike Christianity, there is no "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's" in the Koran, so there is no possibility of the separation of church and state. Turkey has been trying it for the last 80 years or so and secularism is only held in place by the mailed fist of the Army. I think we could take a lesson from that.
I think "bridges" to the muslim world are a fine idea. You can set up access control on bridges, and if necessay blow them up to keep the Caliphate at bay. SomehowI don't think that's exactly what our "dignitaries" at the UN have in mind though...
Well that was subtle. As for the premise:
'They say that the critical symbol of discord is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, along with Western military interventions in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, contributes significantly to the growing sense of resentment and mistrust that mars relations among communities.
"Moreover, the perception of double standards in the application of international law and the protection of human rights is increasing resentment and the sense of vulnerability felt by many Muslims around the globe," the report says.'
I have a few issues with this view. First, the Israel thing is a result of the failure of the Arabs/Muslims to manage their own interests, since they had plenty of opportunity in the first 10 years of the existance of Israel to obliterate it, and they couldn't pull it off. It looks like the Iranians are gearing up to directly join the effort to wipe out the only true democracy in the ME, so stay tuned for the end result.
I won't touch Iraq, except to say that nobody forced the locals to start slaughtering each other as soon as the Baathists were overthrown, and the fact that they're doing so is NOT the Americans' fault.
Afghanistan. Well, we could have ignored a blatant terrorist training base and the government that supported it, but strangely that doesn't seem like a viable option. The same people who carp about "Western military intervention" don't seem to make note of the attempts to rebuild the country and give it a functional government. What exactly is the message we're supposed to come away with here?
In the past I've advocated just smashing things as a warning to cease and desist. This has been frowned upon by many as being counter-productive in the long run, and I have been able to see their perspective. Increasingly I'm not convinced I'm wrong.
If trying to change governments in what we perceive to be the best interest of the subject peoples is just going to generate charges of, well whatever you can imagine, then WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER?
Leaving them be is a bad idea, since we're obviously despised as the infidel pigs that we are, so a little power projection can convince them that the Crusader-Zionist conspiracy is best left unprovoked.
Islam as a religion isn't a particular threat to Western society. However, unlike Christianity, there is no "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's" in the Koran, so there is no possibility of the separation of church and state. Turkey has been trying it for the last 80 years or so and secularism is only held in place by the mailed fist of the Army. I think we could take a lesson from that.
I think "bridges" to the muslim world are a fine idea. You can set up access control on bridges, and if necessay blow them up to keep the Caliphate at bay. SomehowI don't think that's exactly what our "dignitaries" at the UN have in mind though...
Sunday 5 November 2006
Orson Scott Card on Bush and the War on Terror
This is long, but definitely worth a read. I've not digested it fully yet (I read it 5 minutes ago) but it rings quite true to me so I'll go with my gut and recommend you look at it. It's an excellent complement to that "Ghost of Patton" rant I linked to a short time ago, but a lot more balanced, looking at the nuances of America's actions and intentions.
I'd like hear from anyone about either/both of these items, so don't be shy.
I'd like hear from anyone about either/both of these items, so don't be shy.
Pour décourager les autres…
Ok, I’m not going to pull any punches on this one. This is another example of the successful use of the human shield by the other side. You can check the link above, or see Al-Jazeera’s take on it. The material facts of the case are the same, and AJ’s coverage (other than the headline) seems at least as balanced as the CTV’s. These two excerpts from the Canadian story will show why we’re never going to effectively deal with similar situations in Afghanistan or elsewhere:
"The Israeli army said troops were reluctant to fire into the crowd but noticed two militants hiding among the women. And as the crowd dispersed, at least two men were seen disguised as women.
The large crowd that had gathered by mid-morning Friday helped the militants to escape, because there weren't enough ground troops to keep the protesters away from the building, the military said.
Israeli troops had bombarded the mosque with stun and smoke grenades, and bulldozed an outer wall of the structure in an attempt to force the gunmen to surrender.
Around the town, Israeli forces lowered their profile. Soldiers stopped patrolling the streets, though snipers were still perched on rooftops and tanks were still in position on the streets.
Despite the crackdown on Beit Hanoun, rockets have continued to land in Israel."
This mob of “innocent” women was gathered according to a Hamas radio appeal, and was there to trump the Israeli military option. You may notice the lack of brutal military determination to deal with these armed guys hiding in a mosque (stun and smoke grenades aren’t exactly decisive), and then the effective retreat of the IDF from the area after this embarrassing debacle.
You will notice that the cause of the IDF incursion (the rocket attacks) continued unabated, so they got a bit of bad press for nothing.
This keeps working, so it’ll keep being done. Now, just for the sake of argument, say you had flattened the mosque as soon as the bad guys (your perspective, of course) decided to use it for a fort, this human shield thing wouldn’t have had time to materialize, and no women would have been shot and the bad guys would have been effectively neutralized if not killed outright.
Failing that, send a message. The Laws of Armed Conflict (see earlier post) do not deny forces the right to fire on civilian targets if hostile forces are there. This clause is there because if it were not, all that were required to stop operations would be the opposing force hiding in a house. Obviously this won’t fly, so we MAKE IT CLEAR to our potential enemies to “Just send in your Chief and surrender, it’s worse if you fights or you runs, you can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns!”. (quote from guess who)
In short, gun the whole lot of them down. This doesn’t mean indiscriminately target non-combatants (which is very much against the LOAC), but these were merely unarmed combatants. In my books if you engage in a ruse de guerre like pulling out a white flag to help your armed compatriots escape, this doesn’t safeguard you from armed retaliation. It's not just my twisted opinion either; I'm pretty sure it's international law, for whatever that's worth these days.
Our squeamishness about killing “civilians” is meaningless when the enemy doesn’t play by our rules, or even wear uniforms. There will be an international outrage no matter what you do in this case, but I argue that making it clear that you have accepted the gauntlet that has been thrown down will do a lot more good in the long run.
There were cases in Lebanon this past summer of certain villages defending their territory against Hezbollah, because they knew what would happen if the bastards were allowed to set up shop there. You’ll notice how little press that got. If being a bullet-catcher is made to look like a bad idea (i.e. you’ll be taken up on it!) a lot less people will be willing to do it.
"The Israeli army said troops were reluctant to fire into the crowd but noticed two militants hiding among the women. And as the crowd dispersed, at least two men were seen disguised as women.
The large crowd that had gathered by mid-morning Friday helped the militants to escape, because there weren't enough ground troops to keep the protesters away from the building, the military said.
Israeli troops had bombarded the mosque with stun and smoke grenades, and bulldozed an outer wall of the structure in an attempt to force the gunmen to surrender.
Around the town, Israeli forces lowered their profile. Soldiers stopped patrolling the streets, though snipers were still perched on rooftops and tanks were still in position on the streets.
Despite the crackdown on Beit Hanoun, rockets have continued to land in Israel."
This mob of “innocent” women was gathered according to a Hamas radio appeal, and was there to trump the Israeli military option. You may notice the lack of brutal military determination to deal with these armed guys hiding in a mosque (stun and smoke grenades aren’t exactly decisive), and then the effective retreat of the IDF from the area after this embarrassing debacle.
You will notice that the cause of the IDF incursion (the rocket attacks) continued unabated, so they got a bit of bad press for nothing.
This keeps working, so it’ll keep being done. Now, just for the sake of argument, say you had flattened the mosque as soon as the bad guys (your perspective, of course) decided to use it for a fort, this human shield thing wouldn’t have had time to materialize, and no women would have been shot and the bad guys would have been effectively neutralized if not killed outright.
Failing that, send a message. The Laws of Armed Conflict (see earlier post) do not deny forces the right to fire on civilian targets if hostile forces are there. This clause is there because if it were not, all that were required to stop operations would be the opposing force hiding in a house. Obviously this won’t fly, so we MAKE IT CLEAR to our potential enemies to “Just send in your Chief and surrender, it’s worse if you fights or you runs, you can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns!”. (quote from guess who)
In short, gun the whole lot of them down. This doesn’t mean indiscriminately target non-combatants (which is very much against the LOAC), but these were merely unarmed combatants. In my books if you engage in a ruse de guerre like pulling out a white flag to help your armed compatriots escape, this doesn’t safeguard you from armed retaliation. It's not just my twisted opinion either; I'm pretty sure it's international law, for whatever that's worth these days.
Our squeamishness about killing “civilians” is meaningless when the enemy doesn’t play by our rules, or even wear uniforms. There will be an international outrage no matter what you do in this case, but I argue that making it clear that you have accepted the gauntlet that has been thrown down will do a lot more good in the long run.
There were cases in Lebanon this past summer of certain villages defending their territory against Hezbollah, because they knew what would happen if the bastards were allowed to set up shop there. You’ll notice how little press that got. If being a bullet-catcher is made to look like a bad idea (i.e. you’ll be taken up on it!) a lot less people will be willing to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)