Zimbabwe surprises me only in that it continues to get worse, long past the point that I'd thought it had bottomed out. I have pretty much given up on Afghanistan as you may have noticed, and I'm not alone, but I think there is a case to be made for going in hard into Zimbabwe and taking out the trash.
There is no longer even a pretense of a democratic process there, and the African countries have no interest in sorting this mess out, so perhaps it's time to get "neo-colonialist" on their asses.
It wouldn't be colonialist, as I have no intention of planting colonists nor exploiting the place for advantageous trade arrangements. A bit of Regime Change is, however, exactly what the doctor ordered.
Mugabe keeps trotting out his "war veterans", but there are lot of the old Rhodesian Army alumni around who could be cadre-d with western forces to kick Mugabe's ass, destroy his powerbase, and provide some muscle for a new government centred around the MDC. They did, after all WIN the election despite widespread manipulation of the results, so I think they represent the legitimate will of the majority.
Under competent management Zimbabwe could again be the breadbasket of southern Africa, and unlike Afghanistan (and perhaps Iraq, etc.) it is not such a basket case that it can't be put back on its' feet. The neighbours can't/won't do the job, but we can, and it would be a worthwhile thing to do with a reasonable timeline and obvious exit strategy.
"In and out clever" was the old term (I think I've used it here before), and is my pragmatic approach. High intensity, medium-risk operations with clear and attainable objectives. Fix things that CAN be fixed, and/or damage our enemies badly enough to set them back. Nobody is rushing to help Zimbabwe because of a lack of pressing geopolitical reasons, overstretch in various Asian quagmires and any number of logistical and political hurdles, but it doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile thing to do.
If the support of South Africa can be secured for the logistics of an operation (in their interest, after all) it can be done. By whom and with what I have no idea at present, but I use this as an example of what we can do if we feel the need to do this sort of thing. The locals are not inherently antagonistic to us and our way of life, making the place a good candidate for nation re-building. The same cannot be said for a lot of other parts of the world.
Monday 23 June 2008
Sunday 22 June 2008
Carbon Feet of Clay
I must be feeling a bit better, as my outrage at patent stupidity is returning to near-normal levels, restoring the sense of purpose which led to me start this blog in the first place. I have had a lot of stuff on here about the Global Warming hoax/panic, and the political set are jockeying to punish us financially just as many (myself included) predicted.
The Honourable Mr. Dion is currently staking all of his political marbles on this "Green Shift" taxation scheme. I'll get more to the nuts and bolts of that in a minute, but an aside first.
There is mounting evidence that whatever warming there was was a) minor and b) over several years ago. I have documented that elsewhere so I won't re-hash it here, but I wanted to point out what I find worrisome about the recent rash of Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax, etc. initiatives from various governments. It's pretty simple: their very existence under the current circumstances.
We just had one of the longest, snowiest winters in living memory, temperatures were below average over much of the Northern Hemisphere (at least), evidence is abundant that all of Al Gore's eyewash is exactly that, AND oil prices are at an all-time high. This is the time politicians choose to try to hammer us with a Carbon Tax?
That this seems contra-indicated by economic factors alone is the most obvious point, and one which is not lost on the population, currently being punished on every level by ridiculous prices for oil. A tax on "Carbon" (does this include BBQ charcoal? My exhalations?) is a Tax on EVERYTHING, because it doesn't walk to get to you.
I linked this from a particular CTV article, and the comments section is revealing in the preponderance of comments hostile to this as a plan. There are of course many ways to explain that, but I will invoke Occam's Razor on this one; people are taxed enough, are paying punishingly high prices for gas, seeing the price of everything else go relentlessly up, and foresee even more of all the above if a carbon tax is added to the mix.
I think that such a thing should be voluntary; if you really believe that the whole thing will be "revenue neutral" for you, you sign up for it. The 90% of the population not stupid or Utopian enough to fall for it will happily let you, as long as they don't have to as well. Should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is...
The PM, in my opinion, had the pulse of the country in response to this idea when he said:
"(The carbon tax plan) is like the national energy program in the sense that the national energy program was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector -- and this will do those things. ... This is different in that this will actually screw everybody across the country."
Those of more delicate disposition have proffessed to have taken exception to his language, but personally I think he nailed it on the head.
Oh perish the use of the four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure;
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar obscene and impure.
But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase
That never quite says what you mean.
You had better be known for your hypocrite ways
Than as vulgar, impure and obscene.
Let your morals be loose as an Alderman's vest
If your language is always obscure.
Today, not the act, but the word is the test
Of vulgar obscene and impure.
Old (and anonymous, so no apologies if I've not the right version exactly) but a spade is still a small shovel and I will always respect someone more for being straight with me than for their oratorical skills in dancing around something.
"Shift out of luck" is as close as the government could actually come to telling us what we'd be if this "Green Shift" is implemented. The only "Green Shift" I see out of this is the shift of more of my "green" (and red, and brownish, and blue, etc) to the taxman and to businesses for our necessities and luxuries alike.
The Honourable Mr. Dion is currently staking all of his political marbles on this "Green Shift" taxation scheme. I'll get more to the nuts and bolts of that in a minute, but an aside first.
There is mounting evidence that whatever warming there was was a) minor and b) over several years ago. I have documented that elsewhere so I won't re-hash it here, but I wanted to point out what I find worrisome about the recent rash of Cap-and-Trade, Carbon Tax, etc. initiatives from various governments. It's pretty simple: their very existence under the current circumstances.
We just had one of the longest, snowiest winters in living memory, temperatures were below average over much of the Northern Hemisphere (at least), evidence is abundant that all of Al Gore's eyewash is exactly that, AND oil prices are at an all-time high. This is the time politicians choose to try to hammer us with a Carbon Tax?
That this seems contra-indicated by economic factors alone is the most obvious point, and one which is not lost on the population, currently being punished on every level by ridiculous prices for oil. A tax on "Carbon" (does this include BBQ charcoal? My exhalations?) is a Tax on EVERYTHING, because it doesn't walk to get to you.
I linked this from a particular CTV article, and the comments section is revealing in the preponderance of comments hostile to this as a plan. There are of course many ways to explain that, but I will invoke Occam's Razor on this one; people are taxed enough, are paying punishingly high prices for gas, seeing the price of everything else go relentlessly up, and foresee even more of all the above if a carbon tax is added to the mix.
I think that such a thing should be voluntary; if you really believe that the whole thing will be "revenue neutral" for you, you sign up for it. The 90% of the population not stupid or Utopian enough to fall for it will happily let you, as long as they don't have to as well. Should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is...
The PM, in my opinion, had the pulse of the country in response to this idea when he said:
"(The carbon tax plan) is like the national energy program in the sense that the national energy program was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector -- and this will do those things. ... This is different in that this will actually screw everybody across the country."
Those of more delicate disposition have proffessed to have taken exception to his language, but personally I think he nailed it on the head.
Oh perish the use of the four-letter words
Whose meanings are never obscure;
The Angles and Saxons, those bawdy old birds,
Were vulgar obscene and impure.
But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase
That never quite says what you mean.
You had better be known for your hypocrite ways
Than as vulgar, impure and obscene.
Let your morals be loose as an Alderman's vest
If your language is always obscure.
Today, not the act, but the word is the test
Of vulgar obscene and impure.
Old (and anonymous, so no apologies if I've not the right version exactly) but a spade is still a small shovel and I will always respect someone more for being straight with me than for their oratorical skills in dancing around something.
"Shift out of luck" is as close as the government could actually come to telling us what we'd be if this "Green Shift" is implemented. The only "Green Shift" I see out of this is the shift of more of my "green" (and red, and brownish, and blue, etc) to the taxman and to businesses for our necessities and luxuries alike.
Thursday 19 June 2008
Lessons Learned; now perhaps some recess?
I'm still not back in peak form for this sort of thing, but I just can't leave my poor blog to languish for too long if I can physically access it and have time to do so. Those two criteria being met, just a short post about Afghanistan and stuff.
With the recent jailbreak in Kandahar and the short-lived Taliban "take-over" of the Argandab there is a lot of focus on the place again. Things seem to be going largely our way for the moment (no NATO and few ANA casualties vs several dozen bad guys) but my view of the big picture, long term, what-have-you has not changed.
Pakistan (source of many of the recent Taliban casualties, apparently) is still a basket case as an "ally" and could get worse with very little warning. This is the dreaded sanctuary with which any insurgency is unbeatable. Add in external interference from meddlesome third parties (e.g. Iran) and the ambivalence of the Pashtun population of Afghanistan, and I really don't see a lot of hope for the place.
Don't hold me to this, as my mind may change later, but at this time after doing a tour there I have no interest in doing so again. There are many ways to die and or be maimed for life, but having rolled the dice once on a hopeless cause I feel no urgency to do so again.
I am, as much as I am of anything in particular, of the realist school of foreign relations. We kicked the Taliban's ass in 2001-2002, and at any other time they've been stupid enough to stand and fight us. This can continue indefinitely and what is the net gain to Canada's security? We're well past the point of diminishing returns and run the risk of ruining our Army in the process if we continue for too long.
As an institution we have learned everything useful that we can from our time in Afghanistan. Some may dispute that, but we have re-established the supremacy of firepower (artillery and close-air as well as direct fire from tanks), the necessity for armour, shown the fallacy that wheeled vehicles can do anything that tracks can, and by our lack of it, the need for battlefield helicopters for mobility in an IED environment.
We have re-learned a lot of things that we shouldn't have forgotten, like that the original purpose of a tank was to help Infantry overcome strong points, NOT to fight other tanks, and (although I'm not so sure this one is really absorbed) that the maximum load an average soldier can carry and fight with all day is about 60lbs.
I saw a good article today about all of our high-tech stuff and the reality of wearing it on operations, so all is not lost, but I think we need another enforced break from international adventures so that we can rebuild the army, both in hardware and personnel. Apply our lessons learned, but not lose sight of fighting a conventional war or keep the pesky Danes and Russians from poaching our Arctic territory.
I'm out of sorts so I'm not as gung-ho as I could be, but I've lost what little motivation I ever had to get myself killed (or worse) over Afghanistan. I don't seek to dissuade others from doing their job, and anyone who could be/has been in the line of fire can disagree with me and I won't argue against you. Anyone who is NOT willing to put their ass on the line at all has no basis whatsoever to give me any opinion on my position and I will ignore yours accordingly.
There are lots of things I am still prepared to do in service of my country, but I'll feel more up to it when I can see the correlation between my risk and the security of my family. Not the official line by a long shot, but as always only my opinion, although I'm sure I'm not alone.
With the recent jailbreak in Kandahar and the short-lived Taliban "take-over" of the Argandab there is a lot of focus on the place again. Things seem to be going largely our way for the moment (no NATO and few ANA casualties vs several dozen bad guys) but my view of the big picture, long term, what-have-you has not changed.
Pakistan (source of many of the recent Taliban casualties, apparently) is still a basket case as an "ally" and could get worse with very little warning. This is the dreaded sanctuary with which any insurgency is unbeatable. Add in external interference from meddlesome third parties (e.g. Iran) and the ambivalence of the Pashtun population of Afghanistan, and I really don't see a lot of hope for the place.
Don't hold me to this, as my mind may change later, but at this time after doing a tour there I have no interest in doing so again. There are many ways to die and or be maimed for life, but having rolled the dice once on a hopeless cause I feel no urgency to do so again.
I am, as much as I am of anything in particular, of the realist school of foreign relations. We kicked the Taliban's ass in 2001-2002, and at any other time they've been stupid enough to stand and fight us. This can continue indefinitely and what is the net gain to Canada's security? We're well past the point of diminishing returns and run the risk of ruining our Army in the process if we continue for too long.
As an institution we have learned everything useful that we can from our time in Afghanistan. Some may dispute that, but we have re-established the supremacy of firepower (artillery and close-air as well as direct fire from tanks), the necessity for armour, shown the fallacy that wheeled vehicles can do anything that tracks can, and by our lack of it, the need for battlefield helicopters for mobility in an IED environment.
We have re-learned a lot of things that we shouldn't have forgotten, like that the original purpose of a tank was to help Infantry overcome strong points, NOT to fight other tanks, and (although I'm not so sure this one is really absorbed) that the maximum load an average soldier can carry and fight with all day is about 60lbs.
I saw a good article today about all of our high-tech stuff and the reality of wearing it on operations, so all is not lost, but I think we need another enforced break from international adventures so that we can rebuild the army, both in hardware and personnel. Apply our lessons learned, but not lose sight of fighting a conventional war or keep the pesky Danes and Russians from poaching our Arctic territory.
I'm out of sorts so I'm not as gung-ho as I could be, but I've lost what little motivation I ever had to get myself killed (or worse) over Afghanistan. I don't seek to dissuade others from doing their job, and anyone who could be/has been in the line of fire can disagree with me and I won't argue against you. Anyone who is NOT willing to put their ass on the line at all has no basis whatsoever to give me any opinion on my position and I will ignore yours accordingly.
There are lots of things I am still prepared to do in service of my country, but I'll feel more up to it when I can see the correlation between my risk and the security of my family. Not the official line by a long shot, but as always only my opinion, although I'm sure I'm not alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)