A Day Late and a Dollar Short for Fort Hood, but...

For all the times that the Americans drop the ball and fail to prevent things, occasionally they get the payback thing right.

Just a few days ago, the pen pal of Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter that killed 14 and wounded dozens more, scoffed at the effectiveness of American intelligence and military power.  The US delivered its own message to Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi by some sources) in its raids on an al-Qaeda leadership meeting that left 30 dead, including the cleric that some believe played an operational role in 9/11:

Gotta love those airstrikes.  From a technical standpoint I'm curious what they hit this meeting with that had the punch to kill 30 of the bastards.  The Hellfire missle is the standard tool of the Predator and is ideal for taking out vehicles and even bunkers, as it was designed to kill tanks.  Given the part of the world the Yanks have lots of airbases and carriers within range, so this was likely an actual bomb.  Not too many problems of this sort that can't be solved with a 2000lb JDAM.

Awlaki claims that Hasan initiated the e-mail correspondence with a message on Dec. 17, 2008. “He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers,” says Awlaki. “His question was is it legitimate [under Islamic law].”
The Al Jazeera questioner asks for confirmation that Hasan forwarded this query nearly a year before the shooting.
“Yes,” responds Awlaki. “I am astonished. Where was American intelligence that claimed once that it can read any car plate number anywhere in the world?”

 You appear to have your answer; not dead, just sleeping a lot.

Britain's no-longer-shocking decline continues apace.

This isn't the first time by a long shot that British courts have done this, but the incredible arrogance never ceases to enrage me.

JERUSALEM — Israel's prime minister on Tuesday called a British arrest warrant against the country's former foreign minister "an absurdity" and warned that attempts to prosecute Israeli officials for war crimes charges over last winter's Gaza offensive could harm relations between the two countries.

Could?  I'd yank my ambassador for something like this, but maybe I'm still cranky about fighting with City Hall over them extorting me on my property taxes.  No "maybe" about that in fact, but it makes this resonate even more:

Netanyahu rejected the notion that leaders and army officers "who defended our civilians bravely and morally against a despicable and brutal enemy could be branded war criminals. We firmly reject this absurdity."

The other side fires rockets from populated areas and YOU are the war criminal for shooting back?  Yes, that's the colour of the sky in a lot of the world these days.  In cases like this, what's important is what works,  and you will notice a lot less rocket attacks from Gaza since the IDF laid the smackdown on Hamas there.  I guess I'm a war criminal too; I'd better stay out of the U.K. in case they arrest me for agreeing with the Israelis.  I wish that sounded as far-fetched to me as it should, but:

Pro-Palestinian lawyers attempted earlier this year to invoke the "universal jurisdiction" law to arrest Gaza war mastermind Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, but his status as a Cabinet minister gave him diplomatic immunity.

In 2005, a retired Israeli general, Doron Almog, returned to Israel immediately after landing in London because he was tipped off that British police planned to arrest him. The warrant against Almog -- who oversaw the 2002 bombing of a Gaza home in which 14 people were killed along with a leading Palestinian militant -- was later cancelled.

Other Israeli leaders, including former military chief Moshe Yaalon and ex-internal security chief Avi Dichter, have also cancelled trips to Britain in recent years for the same reason.

   Hell, offer all the displaced persons in the Palestinian refugee camps British citizenship and send what's left of your martime resources to pick them up; that's where things are headed anyway.   I don't think I'll be renewing my Brit passport; I don't want to go down with the ship.  British history for me now ends at the outside in 1982, the last time a British government showed any backbone at all.  Lady Thatcher, I'm afraid that Britain is now a nation in headlong flight.  As a country these qualities are no longer to be seen:

Today we meet in the aftermath of the Falklands Battle. Our country has won a great victory and we are entitled to be proud. This nation had the resolution to do what it knew had to be done—to do what it knew was right.

The U.K. government really should rein these clowns in; an independant judiciary does not mean that you make a hash of international relations on behalf of narrow special-interest groups.  This is another example of democracies getting the governments they deserve.  I don't see any way out short of revolution, and I can't see THAT happening, despite abundant provocation.

It does seem that if you want to see the diametric opposite of what WILL be done by stupid, scared governments in the West, this blog continues to be a good resource.  That's all I can do for those who still care about making things work again.

Circling the drain in the Carbon Sink

The USA is finished, and the countdown to final collapse began Dec 7 2009 with the EPA ruling that CO2 is a pollutant meaning that it will have the power to regulate it.  The link I chose for that sentence is one from what is left of the U.S. industrial belt.  This will beat down their remaining industry with regulations, while jacking up energy costs in a country (like many others) that still gets much of it's power (49% or so in 2006) from coal plants.

So, to take this new announcement to it's logical conclusion, we have to eliminate everything that emits CO2, or regulate it.  How do you regulate forests?  Cut them down?  Crops?  Volcanoes?  In fact, this is bundled with some other gases, one being methane.  This covers all of our personal gaseous byproducts, and the cracks that are currently circulating are along the lines of "tax the air you breathe".

That's not far off, though for the time being they wouldn't try to impose personal exhalation limits.  I'm not sure it matters too much as the cost of EVERYTHING is tied to energy costs.  It will amount to a huge tax, and Obama has stated in the recent past that he intends to bankrupt anyone who wants to use coal.  Even now I'm not certain what all of these people think the end result of their plans to hobble Western industry will be.  It 's not like we can live on the beach all year; we need technology to support our large populations in sub-optimal climatic zones. Wrecking our industrial base will cripple our economy further, and there goes the financial surplus that feeds innovation.

The anarchists et al are crowing about the failure of Capitalism which brought much of the world (and especially the USA) to the current Great Recession.  They'll jump on any bandwagon that will crash the current political and economic systems, and they form the most radical wedge of the "green" movement.  In fact it was not a failure of capitalism that brought things here, but an excess of regulation and individual capitalists behaving badly.

Capitalism needs regulation for sure, but a light hand (safe labour practices, sensible environmental rules, not much else) gets the best results.  Making it more difficult to do business in North America will simply drive what is left of our wealth-producing (e.g. manufacturing) businesses overseas.   We need ideas that can work, and money to be spent to make them work.  Space-based solar power is inching closer to reality, and that is the direction things need to go.  This all takes money, and people need to remember that governments don't make any of it themselves.

While this is happening, the environmental intelligencia are in Copenhagen trying to reach agreements on how to rape the taxpayers of developed countries more with climate legislation.  The only sign of hope on that front is that they seem to be squabbling.  In this case doing nothing is the best possible thing, so the more of that that goes on the better for us.

Climategate and the true colours of the mainstream media.

I won't rehash in excruciating detail the leaked data from the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit, but the short version is that it gives convincing evidence of collusion and manipulation of data there to produce certain kinds of results. WUWT is the best source (though far from the only one) on this sort of thing so I'll direct you there for far more detail than I can process fully, let alone relate.

No, my real axe to grind here is with CTV and CBC. They are not alone, but they are local and the latter is supported by my tax dollars so I'll work them over first. It is only today (1 Dec 2009) that CBC is admitting that this information even exists and at that it is spinning like mad to discredit it. CTV has yet to touch it at all and they've heard from me about that already, much good may it do.

The basics of the whole thing are as follows: a couple of weeks ago persons unknown hacked into the CRU server and liberated a LOT of data. [Update: evidence is convincing that this was a leak, not a hack] Gobs of code from projects that have been run and most devastating, (as it's easier to understand by most people, myself included) hundreds of internal emails between the CRU researchers and affiliates showing them to be manipulating data and suppressing the truth about their sources.

They hid behind “freedom of information” laws (now THAT’s irony!), fabricated data and made models that didn’t fit the historical record, let alone accurately predict the present (then future). This article from the Telegraph says it all quite nicely:

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

So back to my point. The UK media can't avoid it completely as it happened in their back yard, but the North American media are doing their damnedest to ignore or suppress it. One has to wonder why. I can see these researchers and hangers-on who are stakeholders in the AGW machine, but the media has what exactly to gain by sitting on this? With the Copenhagen meetings on how to fleece Western societies and de-industrialize us completely about to take place there is room for a BIG media storm. That's the kind of climate change I'd like to see.

Political Leadership 101

There are a couple of things that have popped up in Canadian politics recently that probably require some comment. Maybe not require, but since I use this to vent, that’s what is going to happen regardless.

First and far lower profile is the minor flap over the “no-good bastards” remark made by Conservative MP Gerald Keddy recently. He was saying what a lot of people think about the chronically unemployed in the context of migrant labour, in other words it was a defensible opinion, albeit rather crudely presented.

He should certainly not have said exactly that in a public forum, but what’s done is done. What bothers me, and lowers his credibility with people who otherwise agree with him, is the cringing end to his apology in the House of Commons the other day:
Later Tuesday, Keddy stood in the House of Commons and once again expressed his regret. "I apologize to anyone who was offended by my remarks," he said.
Keddy said what he was thinking, and although it badly needed to be qualified somewhat, some people NEED to be offended sometimes. A blanket apology (to me) shows a lack of backbone unless it is used for something you said impulsively but don’t actually mean. We all do that, and there is no value in backing up random stupidity that pops out of your head. Admit it was stupid and move on, but do it with some class.

You’ll piss certain people off no matter what you say if you’re saying anything of substance; that’s the price of doing business. If you flip-flop and react to that by apologizing all the time you’ll lose the respect (and support) of the people who DID agree with you.

Next, the main event in the Commons right now: the prisoner hand-off/torture fiasco.

The government has done a terrible job with this, full-stop. Today’s headlines include a poll done that shows that more people believe Diplomat Richard Colvin’s assertions that he warned the government about the fact that prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities by our troops were routinely abused by those authorities.

We have been hearing these allegations in the news for several years now, and I’m quite certain that this is the case. The Defence Minister’s attempts to discredit Colvin have backfired badly, as they should have, because they were dishonest smear tactics. Transfers have been put on hold several times in-theatre because the Afghans were abusing prisoners a bit too obviously.

This is a dirty war in a crappy but deadly serious part of the world. Ask the Russians; if you were captured, you were lucky if they only ass-raped you within an inch of your life. Hell, go even farther back if need be:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

I read something yesterday about someone interviewing a “former” Taliban Imam in Kabul about these torture claims being propaganda. His response was apparently a shrug followed by “We would do the same to them”.

Where does this connect to the Leadership theme I claimed in the title? The first of the Canadian Forces Principles of Leadership is: “Achieve professional competence.” Do your homework so that you come out of the gate with the right information. This of course may have been the case; Mr MacKay likely knew a great deal about what goes on over there. In that case this has just been poorly handled.

Credibility was the basis of the government’s attack on Colvin, and it was a poor choice. The way to handle this was to say “Yes, we have heard about this. At any time when we had grounds for concern about the treatment of prisoners we handed over to the Afghans, we suspended transfers until they straightened out again.”

Give the opposition no traction, but DO IT WITH THE TRUTH. This reinforces your credibility, and from there you can brush off the gnat-like buzzing of disgruntled diplomats and take the wind out of the sails of your political opponents. I notice that the government is starting to move in this direction now, but the damage has been done.

Calling politicians “leaders” is a stretch the vast majority of the time. The strength of personality required to stand by your principles (heck, to have some principles as a politician in the first place) is rare, and even more rare is that coupled with enough charisma to pull it off. Preston Manning, for example is very principled, but lacked the charisma to break out into the mainstream. His opposite is sitting in the White House right now; all charisma, no leadership or firm principles, and people are starting to notice.

That I suppose is the point of diminishing returns that you hit if you have firm opinions on things. Far more damaging than merely disagreeing with someone is having no respect for them, and trade-offs must be carefully calculated if you’re to have a successful run as a politician that people feel that they can trust. A rare breed, but the only true Leaders in politics, or anywhere else for that matter.

“You can’t handle the truth!” is a famous admonition (albeit from a work of fiction) about what the public can digest. The public will understand what needs to be done as long as you explain it succinctly and consistently. It works with kids, and we all were kids once so it still works. Note that “succinctly” doesn’t mean “dumb it down”; many people are simple, but the majority of them are not actually stupid and that is an important distinction. And yes, I know I’m repeating myself on this topic, but hey, I’m fairly consistent!

The pesky History that refuses to end.

This month marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the loudest and most terminal death-knell of the Communist empire. Virtually nobody much under the age of 40 today (especially in North America and outside of Europe in general) recognized the significance of the event at the time, and correspondingly don't care too much today.

Indeed, today the Cold War is scarcely even on the radar as a historical period for most people. Since we avoided WW3 I suppose that's unavoidable, but the USSR didn't collapse because we ignored them and hoped they'd go away. Gen. Patton didn't get his wish in 1945 to re-arm the Germans and head east, but they were pretty aggressively contained from that time forward.

Stalin to this day still doesn't have the bad rep of Hitler even though he killed a lot more of his own people than Adolf could ever have dreamed of doing. That said, the generation that had just beaten the (arguably) best military machine in history into the ground knew a threat when they saw one. The political will to fight another major war in Eurasia after six (or 3.5) years of war was simply not there, but the sacrifices made to rid Europe of a blighted ideology would not be completely squandered. If there is anything positive to remember about American foreign policy, it is from that period immediately after WW2.

The USA is broken, and I'm not sure it will ever reach the heights it had the potential to. It did keep the Commies from taking everything over, and that was a great service to the world even if no-one appreciates it now. All of the future tech, space travel, flying cars, etc. should have come from the US, but they are strangling themselves in bureaucracy, political correctness and entitlements.

In the meantime, history marches on. Sorry Francis Fukuyama, you were incredibly wrong, and anyone who actually paid attention to history and current events, 20 years ago as much as today would have known it. I sure did. I read something a long time ago about it being possible to kill pessimists, but optimists would take care of themselves for you. Neoconservatives are a special kind of optimist, the kind that gets a lot of other people killed for their good intentions. They are not alone in this, but I'm not big on labels and categories and these guys are just a big, obvious target.

There was a certain atmosphere that night in November 1989 when the TV images of people smashing the Berlin Wall with sledge hammers started showing up. I was just old enough (and historically aware enough) at the time to be amazed at it, as I knew I was seeing a turning point in history. I was a young soldier back then, and it was until that moment theoretically possible (however unlikely by the late 1980s) that I could get dragged into WW3 in Europe. Knowing that something as big as that had moved from a possibility to an impossibility, just like that... well, I guess you had to be there.

I have good days and bad days like anyone else, but my crystal ball is on the blink and I have no idea where things will go from here. The one thing I do know is that they will go somewhere, but my ability to predict things is pretty much limited to the tactical level, "Gods of the Copybook Headings" kind of things.

I observe (with apprehension, quite frequently) the world that I can see, and history is the keel ballast that keeps me from tipping over completely. As dark as things have ever been, (and things are no worse in that regard today than most times in the past) it never stays like that for good or ill. Will Islam conquer the world (my biggest personal concern)? On balance, not likely. It is the new "Other", and with good cause, as it is as soul-suckingly backwards as Communism in it's worst incarnations, but it has only ever conquered in a relative vacuum. As long as we have the will to fight it, it will not be able to take over.

Are there other things that threaten us? The climate worries some people, but I'm not one of them. It's going to do what it's going to do, and all we can do is make things worse for ourselves if we try to fight it. Nature is BIG, and we are not, so adapt. That, after all is what humanity is best at, and for the record adapting to warmer is easier than adapting to colder.

I saw the Taliban described somewhere today as deranged "fanboys", and it is the most spot-on description of the sort of guy who is attracted to Salafist, etc. Islam I can remember. It's a gang, and it attracts the disaffected and damaged, the simple and the brutal. Communism at least aimed for the intellectuals.

Another historical lesson for those who care to learn it: moderates always get their asses kicked by those willing to go all out for what they believe. The rare case where relatively moderate ideals beat fanatics was (partially) met by WW2. The "partially" is due to the fact that most of the damage was done on the Eastern Front, and we forget that at our peril. The lesson to learn from that is to have some "true believer" allies to do the dirty stuff. Back them with everything you can, but if they'll fight harder than your nationals, let them do it since they're motivated. Think of Ethiopia vs. Somalia.

Europe 20 years after the Wall came down is the canary for Western civilization. There was a time when it was the West, but now it's merely the front line. The Muslims have started to make themselves really unpopular in most European countries. This is still a problem, as 300 years ago they would have been fought on the frontiers, and 200 years ago they were getting booted out of their footholds. The shame is that the Greeks screwed up in 1919-22 and didn't take back Constantinople, then at least the front line would be on the other side of the Dardanelles.

Knocking over strongmen to try to implant democracy is not the future, as it isn't the past; if it didn't work before in some recognizable form, it won't work in your version of it either.

'When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

Sound anything like "Change you can believe in"? I like the fact that the Yanks have a lot of nukes; I'd like it even more if I thought they were willing to use them if need be. That sounds frightening, but if you're willing to go to the wall, the other people who have nukes will make sure they don't end up in the hands of people who'll piss you off. THAT is what I believe in; si vis pacem, para bellum . If you follow that, you're covered no matter what.

I like solutions to things, but many solutions are rather more "final" than our society would find acceptable so we half-ass a lot of things. The gap between the intellectual elite and the disappearing middle and working class is wide, and I think my opinions are more in sync with the latter group. That says something (assuming that I'm not out to lunch), but I'll let you tell me because I'm not even sure what I really think about a lot of things anymore! It's not like we'll ever try to SOLVE the big problems; we'll just hope that the elephants in the room don't sit on us.

Remember, remember, the 5th of November...

Between being busy and being out of action with the current pandemic disease (unpleasant for sure, but not up to the hype of earlier this year), I've put off saying anything about the Ft Hood shootings. In a way this is a useful tactical pause, as it allows the dust to settle a bit and gives an opportunity to temper my knee-jerk reaction to it.

That time having passed, I'll start with the positive; Sgt Kimberly Munley of the Killeen Tx PD (I hope that's correct) stepped up and shot the murderous Islamic zealot down at risk of her own life. She is as of this writing recovering from being wounded in that encounter, and I can't imagine she'll have a problem finding childcare help while she's getting back on her feet. Her actions (e.g. doing her job) have apparently re-opened the debate about allowing women into combat roles in the US military. That's a moot point on this side of the border as we do it already, and women like her are the justification (if not the impetus) for that.

She shot the fucker 4 times, and you would hope that was enough, but it seems not. One way or another (albeit far more expensively now) Nidal Hasan will go to his jihadi reward, but sooner is better than later.

Yes I said it; Nidal Hasan (I refuse to use his rank) is another religious wacko who thinks that you and I should die because we don't do things his way. He's a radicalized Muslim, and that is what this attack was all about. I don't want to hear any more bullshit about PTSD that he supposedly absorbed by osmosis from his psychiatric patients (Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder maybe?). He's a Muslim, and since that's his primary identifier, he had no place in any Western military.

There are an estimated 3500 Muslims in the US armed forces. That is a pool of 3500 people who feel that Islamic law is above any oath they can take to a secular organization. I'm sure not all of them are all that hard-core about it, but it's a risk factor that shouldn't be ignored.

Fifty years ago another ideology posed an existential risk to Western society, and it's adherents were ruthlessly expunged from anywhere sensitive, hell, from Hollywood even. Yes I'm talking about Communists. They too took their orders from a higher authority, in that case and time Moscow, and they would not have been tolerated within the armed forces.

Political correctness has a lot to do with this happening in the first place (there were previous complaints about his ideas) and will have a lot more to do with sanitizing and covering it up. He'll be another generic "lone gunman", and all of those soldiers will have died and been maimed without the benefit of any (re)awakening to the treachery that lurks within our societies.

Here's what Barack Hussein Obama had to say about the motivations of Nidal Hasan:

"This is a time of war. And yet these Americans did not die on a foreign field of battle," Obama said to a crowd estimated at about 15,000. "They were killed here, on American soil, in the heart of this great American community. It is this fact that makes the tragedy even more painful and even more incomprehensible."

Emphasis in the above is mine. I would be curious to know how many of those in attendance at the memorial service at Ft Hood find it so "incomprehensible". Diversity can bite my ass if this is what it leads to.