This is gonna be a short post.
Something occurred to me the other day. It's obvious that the two major players in the Democrat party for 2008 at the moment are of course Barak(sp?) Obama and Hillary Clinton. They're creating a bit of a heated battle. Both are working to build up a massive following, using their different "trump cards." For example, Clinton gets brownie points for being a woman, irrespective of the fact that that means absolutely nothing in whether or not she's qualified to be president. Is she the right woman? (No, that's not sexist.) Obama gets points for being black. It he the right black? And no, that's not racist.
Let me go off on a tangent for a moment: Whether or not you have the right stuff to be President has literally NOTHING to do with color. Blacks are just as likely to make good presidents as whites, asians, and everyone else. By the same token, they're just as likely to make bad presidents. Color is as irrelevant in this matter as hair color or whether the ear lobes are loose or attached. (I know that's a ridiculous example. That's the point.) Now as far as gender goes, there are, like it or not, psychological, hormonal, behavioral, etc, differences between guys and gals. As far as effect on Presidential material, these are generalizations, and do not apply to every case. Or necessarily even to most cases, for that matter. I don't really know enough about gender psychology to comment on this particular matter further.
Now, of course, before I went off on a tangent, the question is, which one (Hillary or Obama) will come out on top?
Just a theory here:
Both are building up their followers.
IF one were to drop out at the last moment, IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER, all (or most, anyway) of their followers would likely latch onto and vote for the other candidate. In this manner, these two could be building up twice as much support for one candidate as that candidate could generate on their own.
Scary tactics.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have yet to figure out who they're gonna go with. Brownback, anyone? More likely Guliani (is that spelled right?), but for the sake of the Republican victory, I hope its not Newt. I'll give reasons why some other time.
Yep. That's it for now.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Heritage Foundation Video
Saw this video. Its about 45 min long, but all 45 minutes are well worth watching. Well, there is a Q&A bit at the end, but that's not that long.
Its highly conservative, and challenges both sides to think about their convictions... and why they have them. Very stimulating.
Its highly conservative, and challenges both sides to think about their convictions... and why they have them. Very stimulating.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Bush's "Troop Surge" and Historical Precendent
One thing that's been on every one's mind is, of course, the Iraq war. In particular, one of the most recent developments was the deployment of an additional number of US troops to Iraq. This has been criticized as a "Troop Surge" which "can't solve the problems in Iraq" by political enemies of the Bush administration. Right.
What exactly does Bush hope to accomplish by this massive "surge," and is it feasible?
The short answer: A faster victory, and it is feasible.
The long answer, however, will take us back to the foundation of our country all the way through our present day. It won't sound relevant until the very end, but bear with me.
The Revolutionary War was fought by, of course, the American Colonists against the British. How was the war actually fought? In the days of Napoleonic war, the common weapon was the musket. Because of its inaccuracy over long distances, soldiers had to stand in a linear formation in order to ensure a field of fire capable of doing significant damage to the enemy. (If they had not been in such formation, then the bullets would have simply been buzzing around practically at random, as opposed to a field of fire.) The reason the Americans were able to win the war was because of the Rifle, which was far more accurate, allowing the minutemen to be fight in separated groups; almost guerrilla tactics as it were. The British, however, were still restricted to older forms of military tactics which were vulnerable to the "new" warfare of the Americans.
Skip to American Civil War. Once again, soldiers have begun marching in straight lines. This resulted in massive casualties for both sides, early in the war. Later on, however, realizing the dangers to unprotected linear formations presented by snipers, entrenched/fortified enemy troops, grapeshot and cannon (more accurate and powerful now than in the Revolution,) etc, troops began to fight using trench warfare. General Longstreet in particular was known for using such tactics. Though the Confederacy ultimately loses, both sides are vulnerable to the "new" warfare of the other side.
Skip to WWI. Europe is torn by guess what? Trench Warfare. It has been so for years. Because of the machine gun which can now mow down troops as they first begin to rise from the trenches, neither side is able to advance far without major losses. Aeroplanes watch enemy movement from the sky, directing long-range artillery. And the troops who cannot leave the trenches due to machine gun fire are slaughtered by gas which is dropped into the trenches. When America enters the war, they bring the tank into play (it has already been used, but on a much smaller scale.) The tank rolls across the battlefield, protecting the troops until they are well into their assault, crushing barbed wire and destroying machine gun nests, etc. Operations are launched based not on linear trench formations (yep, still using linear formations...) but on smaller troop units; strike squads, etc. The Germans ultimately are driven back by the "new" warfare brought by the Americans.
WWII. The birth of the paratroop assault. Paratroopers drop behind enemy lines in Sicily, capturing strategic points allowing Patton and Montgomery to advance in Operation Torch. Bombers become major players in aerial warfare, and fighters are used to defend/destroy them. Both sides employ "new" warfare, and it is ultimately the "new" strategic methods which win the war, rather than the "tried and true" methods.
War in Afghanistan and Iraq: A whole new species of war. I trust you've noticed a pattern by now. With the advancement of technology, the tactics and strategies have also evolved. A tactic that conquered the world for the Romans (tight formations) against loose formations and cell combat cannot be used in that manner today; with today's technology, loose formations and unit tactics destroy the tight formations (think one well-placed grenade.) But each of the previous wars has had a few things in common:
1. They "evolved" from each other. Did you notice the use of linear warfare? Napoleonic war to the Civil War trenches, to WWI's warfare designed entirely to wipe out enemy units in trenches.
2. They all had conventional enemies.
This is where the War on Terror (and war in Iraq, if you feel they ought to be differentiated. I do not.) is different than the previous. Each of the enemy sides in the previous wars had central nerve systems; that is, there was a single or enemy entity or alliance, or a number of such (ie, the British in the American Revolution; the Union/Confederacy in the Civil War; the Germans in WWI; both the Germans and the Japanese in WWII.) However, now we fight a war against a "cellular" enemy. What I mean by that is this: The enemy has a major advantage. I'm not talking about being out of uniform, or that they have fewer restrictions they place on themselves. I'm talking about the fact that THEY ARE DISUNITED.
I can imagine some reactions. "Huh? Disunited is a strength?" Yes, it is. In this particular case. The terrorists are divided into cells; if one cell is destroyed, then there is no harm done to the others. They are not weakened by another group's losses, whereas the US or other NATO members lose morale, supplies, allied troops, even domestic support (not to mention the troops themselves.) This is the strength of disunity.
Now we get to the "surge." Look at history. Every war has always had to be fought in a different manner as technology and political circumstances evolved. The Mexican War was a war of siege (ie, Vera Cruz, Mexico City) and deception (Santa Anna insisted on "glorious" and "honorable" warfare in Napoleonic fashion... and the US came up the flank.) The Civil War, only years later, was a semi-Napoleonic war of entirely different form.
Now, we face not only a new war, but a new species of enemy. Cellular, not centralized. There is no "magic objective" we can take or "primary target" we can kill. The other cells remain unaffected. And even the best troops can only fight so many enemies at once. That's where the troop "surge" comes in. More troops means the ability to fight more cells. (simple math. Say it takes 10 troops to take on a cell. 40 troops can take on 4 cells. add another 30 troops, and now you can take on up to 7 cells at once.) Why so many troops all at once? To fight so many more insurgents. Why fight so many at once? Why not take them down with fewer American, British, Canadian, and other lives on the line, even if it means doing it slower? That's why. Slower. President Bush has been under intense pressure to speed up the timetables. And Bush isn't the only one. The Canadians (who recently pledged more troops to Afghanistan) are also in much the same situation.
There is one final note to make: NATO and its allies are also under intense pressure to speed up Iraqi training. Guess who's training the Iraqi forces? NATO troops. Americans, British, German, French, other troops. (Actually, I think the Germans requested not to be involved in the training. I should look that up.) More troops means more "faculty" at the "Iraqi Security Academy," as it were.
Speed is the political objective. Victory is the military objective. Security is the Iraqi objective. Assuming competent leadership, supplies, and all those other things that we only wish we could take for granted, the troop surge accomplishes all of these.
What exactly does Bush hope to accomplish by this massive "surge," and is it feasible?
The short answer: A faster victory, and it is feasible.
The long answer, however, will take us back to the foundation of our country all the way through our present day. It won't sound relevant until the very end, but bear with me.
The Revolutionary War was fought by, of course, the American Colonists against the British. How was the war actually fought? In the days of Napoleonic war, the common weapon was the musket. Because of its inaccuracy over long distances, soldiers had to stand in a linear formation in order to ensure a field of fire capable of doing significant damage to the enemy. (If they had not been in such formation, then the bullets would have simply been buzzing around practically at random, as opposed to a field of fire.) The reason the Americans were able to win the war was because of the Rifle, which was far more accurate, allowing the minutemen to be fight in separated groups; almost guerrilla tactics as it were. The British, however, were still restricted to older forms of military tactics which were vulnerable to the "new" warfare of the Americans.
Skip to American Civil War. Once again, soldiers have begun marching in straight lines. This resulted in massive casualties for both sides, early in the war. Later on, however, realizing the dangers to unprotected linear formations presented by snipers, entrenched/fortified enemy troops, grapeshot and cannon (more accurate and powerful now than in the Revolution,) etc, troops began to fight using trench warfare. General Longstreet in particular was known for using such tactics. Though the Confederacy ultimately loses, both sides are vulnerable to the "new" warfare of the other side.
Skip to WWI. Europe is torn by guess what? Trench Warfare. It has been so for years. Because of the machine gun which can now mow down troops as they first begin to rise from the trenches, neither side is able to advance far without major losses. Aeroplanes watch enemy movement from the sky, directing long-range artillery. And the troops who cannot leave the trenches due to machine gun fire are slaughtered by gas which is dropped into the trenches. When America enters the war, they bring the tank into play (it has already been used, but on a much smaller scale.) The tank rolls across the battlefield, protecting the troops until they are well into their assault, crushing barbed wire and destroying machine gun nests, etc. Operations are launched based not on linear trench formations (yep, still using linear formations...) but on smaller troop units; strike squads, etc. The Germans ultimately are driven back by the "new" warfare brought by the Americans.
WWII. The birth of the paratroop assault. Paratroopers drop behind enemy lines in Sicily, capturing strategic points allowing Patton and Montgomery to advance in Operation Torch. Bombers become major players in aerial warfare, and fighters are used to defend/destroy them. Both sides employ "new" warfare, and it is ultimately the "new" strategic methods which win the war, rather than the "tried and true" methods.
War in Afghanistan and Iraq: A whole new species of war. I trust you've noticed a pattern by now. With the advancement of technology, the tactics and strategies have also evolved. A tactic that conquered the world for the Romans (tight formations) against loose formations and cell combat cannot be used in that manner today; with today's technology, loose formations and unit tactics destroy the tight formations (think one well-placed grenade.) But each of the previous wars has had a few things in common:
1. They "evolved" from each other. Did you notice the use of linear warfare? Napoleonic war to the Civil War trenches, to WWI's warfare designed entirely to wipe out enemy units in trenches.
2. They all had conventional enemies.
This is where the War on Terror (and war in Iraq, if you feel they ought to be differentiated. I do not.) is different than the previous. Each of the enemy sides in the previous wars had central nerve systems; that is, there was a single or enemy entity or alliance, or a number of such (ie, the British in the American Revolution; the Union/Confederacy in the Civil War; the Germans in WWI; both the Germans and the Japanese in WWII.) However, now we fight a war against a "cellular" enemy. What I mean by that is this: The enemy has a major advantage. I'm not talking about being out of uniform, or that they have fewer restrictions they place on themselves. I'm talking about the fact that THEY ARE DISUNITED.
I can imagine some reactions. "Huh? Disunited is a strength?" Yes, it is. In this particular case. The terrorists are divided into cells; if one cell is destroyed, then there is no harm done to the others. They are not weakened by another group's losses, whereas the US or other NATO members lose morale, supplies, allied troops, even domestic support (not to mention the troops themselves.) This is the strength of disunity.
Now we get to the "surge." Look at history. Every war has always had to be fought in a different manner as technology and political circumstances evolved. The Mexican War was a war of siege (ie, Vera Cruz, Mexico City) and deception (Santa Anna insisted on "glorious" and "honorable" warfare in Napoleonic fashion... and the US came up the flank.) The Civil War, only years later, was a semi-Napoleonic war of entirely different form.
Now, we face not only a new war, but a new species of enemy. Cellular, not centralized. There is no "magic objective" we can take or "primary target" we can kill. The other cells remain unaffected. And even the best troops can only fight so many enemies at once. That's where the troop "surge" comes in. More troops means the ability to fight more cells. (simple math. Say it takes 10 troops to take on a cell. 40 troops can take on 4 cells. add another 30 troops, and now you can take on up to 7 cells at once.) Why so many troops all at once? To fight so many more insurgents. Why fight so many at once? Why not take them down with fewer American, British, Canadian, and other lives on the line, even if it means doing it slower? That's why. Slower. President Bush has been under intense pressure to speed up the timetables. And Bush isn't the only one. The Canadians (who recently pledged more troops to Afghanistan) are also in much the same situation.
There is one final note to make: NATO and its allies are also under intense pressure to speed up Iraqi training. Guess who's training the Iraqi forces? NATO troops. Americans, British, German, French, other troops. (Actually, I think the Germans requested not to be involved in the training. I should look that up.) More troops means more "faculty" at the "Iraqi Security Academy," as it were.
Speed is the political objective. Victory is the military objective. Security is the Iraqi objective. Assuming competent leadership, supplies, and all those other things that we only wish we could take for granted, the troop surge accomplishes all of these.
First Post
Well, the loveliness that is a new blog. Chances are, no one will ever read this, but there's always the possibility. If I manage to get even one person to read this, and think about the topics I'll be posting on, it'll be worth it.
Expect to see stuff about all sorts of world topics: US policy, mostly -- domestic and international -- internal politics; wartime strategy, etc. And anything else I happen to feel important enough to comment on.
Expect to see stuff about all sorts of world topics: US policy, mostly -- domestic and international -- internal politics; wartime strategy, etc. And anything else I happen to feel important enough to comment on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
