In a prior post, I wrote about what I considered to be, essentially, the casting of President Bush by the GOP to the Democratic wolves and the unwarranted abandonment of our proper path in Iraq necessarily yielding a withering support of our soliders in Iraq. What the GOP said, en masse, is that when the going gets tough, the verbally tough fold like a house of cards. The Bush numbers are bad (though getting better) — perhaps it’s time to distance ourselves from the proverbial sinking ship? Frist and Hastert had nothing further to say except — can you feature this? — the first priority for the GOP in 2006 is “asbestos.”
You’ve just absolutely got to be kidding me.
That was bad enough; there was in addition an heretofore unknown Congressman John P. “Mad Jack” Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania, a hawkish Democratic former Marine, who was using his military background as reason for calling for a complete removal of US forces from Iraq in 6 months.
Period.
This was Scholastic Books, Tonka Trucks, GI Joe, Silly Putty, Slinky, DC Comics, Fisher-Price, Pampers-easy. Oh sure, you ridiculous Moonbat, let’s just pull out of Iraq. Ever hear of The Killing Fields? What do you possibly suppose would happen to the entire country? Ever hear of the phrase “nature abhors a vacuum?”
If this is our path, let me give you some insider information: it would be a great time to buy stock in companies producing 7.62 X 39mm ammo.
Let me catch my breath and attempt to get back on track.
Robert wrote the very first comment on my “Cat’s Away” post and said:
“The measure includes White House-opposed language that would prohibit the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees.”
Is the underlying argument here that, without the freedom to treat detainees in cruel, inhuman and degrading ways, we cannot defeat the enemy?
We have an enemy – a cruel and inhuman enemy which delights in degrading its victims. We are BETTER than they are, just as we were better than our enemies in WWII. I refuse to believe that we cannot defeat our enemy without using that enemy’s tools against them.
I had to admit up front: Robert made an excellent observation and posed a very pertinent question. I began to craft an answer in the comments section when I realized: this goes back to my core philosophy and is a question posed by many logical and thinking persons. Instead of burying my response in comments, I wanted to respond in the brighter light of day. I want to respond to the overarching question Robert poses: why these things, why now? Are we not, in fact, better than our enemies and, with this in mind, why respond on their level or, as Robert writes, why must we use our “enemy’s tools against them”?
I almost couldn’t wait for this question.
I have been all aquiver for some time now, wondering how I would address the question, one that I have not necessarily seen addressed in my somewhat limited world of blogs, expanding as it is; but in fact, I realized, the issue would make or break me in the blogosphere and reveal my true identity: I would have to make an absolutist stand in a world of equivocation and would end up, I surmised, alienating many and encompassing even fewer still. Or would it?
Have you not wanted your blog to reach an ever-expanding roll of readers? I know I have. For this reason, maybe I have tempered past posts. Or have I? I began to wonder.
It was for that reason that I stalled writing a post dealing with this topic; in that way Robert sent me the Death Dealer’s hand, in essence writing: put up or shut up.
I decided to put up.
It is for you to decide if you will continue to read my blog after this.
This is my so-called line in the sand.
____________________________________________
I would respond to Robert’s question in this fashion:
____________________________________________
We face a different enemy in different times.
Former enemies played massive forces across difficult fields and seas, clad in uniforms with differentiating helmets, tunics, tanks, ships, aircraft and commanded by states.
They were clearly identified in uniform, vehicle, craft, army, navy, issuing forth from a clear locus, commanded by an identified staff arranged in a hierarchy, motivated by ideology or common sociological belief — at least at that command level or overall commanding body or individual.
Therefore our armies and militaries, our very nation, have been and are currently designed to the largest degree to defend against enemies on that precisely identified scale; a clash on a huge level of massive amounts of people, supplies, equipment, all makes of vehicles to fight their counterpart: more people on a massive scale, vehicles, equipment and the like.
We know that military strategy: large forces deployed against similarly large, identifiable forces.
________________________________________________
But then came newer factors: an enemy easily thrice our landmass, a former ally, now a nuclear power, putting all (and I repeat: all) its cash into a militaristic, communist, socialist society. They beat us into space, they showcased their offensive might into military parades before the Kremlin with each politbureau member present.
The playing field then grew to not only conventional forces available on the NATO lines, but to SADMs, nuclear artillery, megadeaths per megaton, MIRVs, airbursts, a “nuclear deterrent,” and MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction. Generations of Air Force personnel spent months underground in tandem control module missile sites with double backup keys around their necks wondering if and when “the call” would arrive.
In my hometown, Sacramento (CA), B-52G Strategic Air Command (SAC) aircrews spent hours sitting at Mather AFB ready to respond, at a moment’s notice. One live crew sat, constantly rotated, in one B-52 cockpit, 24/7, connected to a start cart for many years. On the Alert Pad, if anyone crossed the red line toward the aircraft, APs had “shoot to kill” orders. If anyone ever told you no nukes were ever in Sacramento, they would be lying. I have seen the earth-covered quonsets where the nuke fuselages were stored, and the literal “bank vaults” where the combo-lock-covered fuses were kept. Roentgen meters still click background here.
Then came the book “Red Alert” and the movies “Fail Safe” and “Dr. Strangelove.” One of my current favorite work sentences is “Wing attack, Plan R.” An employee of mine will likely respond: “purity of essence.”
It is now much more than mere entertainment.
In the “next millenium” there are further factors, things we hadn’t come to grips with in our last true world war (with one exception): biological, nuclear and chemical capabilities, the truly functional terrorist network and, moreover, linked with the greatest motivation ever — a galvanizing factor stronger than any state, any tank, any helicopter, any armor plating:
Religion.
Some persons say the father of modern terrorism is Yassar Arafat. But I would maintain that the true father of modern terrorism is Michael Collins — a man who had many effective predecessors for certain; but was the first to realize that, in the right circumstances, an entire state and its so-called impervious network could be paralyzed.
As I’m sure you realize Robert, a “civilization” depends entirely upon and runs at the behest of one factor, and one factor only: an agreed-upon cooperation. We in the United States are clearly a “cooperative.” Our latin motto, “e pluribus unum” means: “From many: one.” I learned this many years ago, as a small child, from my 86-year-old father who retired as a USAF Colonel, having served in WWII and then Vietnam.
We make a social contract with one another to abide by certain rules, regulations, mores and strictures. If everyone chose to stop cooperating, all would fall apart and we would have chaos.
Chaos.
What would it actually take to enable chaos nationwide?
Not much.
Let us say our borders are as porous as they are now. Let us say that those willing to destroy our very core cross these borders. One day and the next and the next and the next. And so on. They are not necessarily Mexican. They could be multinational. Their goal is to blend in whenever they can. And blend they will; when they can.
Then let me write of torture.
The Patriot Act speaks of some of these things. So does the Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Convention says: if these are prisoners of war they need provide: name, rank, serial number. Nothing more.
They can be held indefinitely until the end of conflict. They are not due their “time in court.” What court?
That we took some of these former so-called prisoners and embarrassed them, digitally in photographs, bespeaks volumes about the control of the military. Am I sorry that these photos raked across the internet? No. What harm was done? We showed that a woman, smoking, has authority over bare-assed Muslims. So f!#*!ing what?
In truth, these photos should never have seen the light of day, and the takers should never have placed their subjects in harm’s way. Simple. Further, these peeps were prosecuted and will soon be serving time under the UCMJ.
The problem, the very SERIOUS problem is that we are situationally aware. Not provisionally aware; situtationally aware. And that necessarily means that we are reactive rather than proactive.
We are better than them.
Of course we are.
It will in fact get down to this:
One day a revelation will occur: we will discover a nuclear device in place in a courtyard previously ignored.
Do we take it down and play the numbers?
I have not even factored in the Islamist factor.
We think we know where a dirty bomb will explode. We have assets in place. We have individuals in custody. We will not take advantage of those individuals in custody.
And I, as an American citizen, would not want my government to take whatever steps were extant to discover where this/these bombs would explode?
Yeah right.
____________________________________________________
I wrote recently in a comments section on another blog some things that might disappoint or shock or cause consternation amongst those who have consistently been reading my blog.
I am somewhat irreligious. I historically consider myself agnostic. I am not a Christian or a Buddhist or a Protestant or a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh, a Shinto or even a Pagan. In fact, in terms of the world’s religions, here’s now they break down:
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha’i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
__________________________________________
And yet I find myself siding with religion primarily 99% of the time. I say “God bless” to certain persons and capitalize God. Why would that be?
Because of the fundamental tenets of religion: embrace good. Discard bad.
One thing my job has hammered into my head over the years: there is in fact Good. And there is in fact Evil. Evil exists because, mostly, it is easy. It takes little thought, work or commitment.
