Yahuti's blog
Posted at 7:11pm on Nov. 16, 2007 Ron, Ron the NEO-CON
By Yahuti
I know it is Friday, and we all want to 'boogy on' to wherever we boogy on Fridays. But friends, before you close the cover on the week, don't move until you have treasted yourselves to this post by Ron Silver's weblog Silver Bullet:
(By the way. What is the secret to converting these massive URLs into a single word or phrase as done by you accomplished bloggers?0
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronsilver/2007/11/15/neocon_extreme_moder...
Posted in Hollywood — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:53am on Dec. 31, 2006 RedStaters, be advised that Jeff Emanuel . . .
By Yahuti
our honorable colleague and collaborator here at R/S got his innings in today with an article in the Washington Times - the national capital's ONLY non fiction daily newspaper, entitled: "Honorable Americans, every one"
Well done, Jeff; and very well spoken, as ususal.
Jeff's aricle can be found . . . here . . .
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20061228-090910-8123r.htm
Posted in Archived — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:29pm on Dec. 23, 2006 RedStaters
By Yahuti
I take this opportunity to wish every one of you - each and every one of you, your families and friends - a very Merry Christmas and a most Happy, Prosperous and Safe New Year - with many more to come.
With more than two years interaction with you lot here on R/S just about all my non-familial Christmas expectations have been fulfilled, if for no other reason than that the experience has never been burdened by a dull moment.
Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:12pm on Nov. 7, 2006 Army Times Editorial Calls for Rumsfeld 'To Go.'
By Yahuti
"This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President. to face the hard, brusing truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go."
Not about the elections! Who the hell are the editors trying to kid?
The Navy and Air Force Times are expected to follow suit with this unprecedented, unsolicited and totally unwarrented piece of advice to the Commander-in-Chief. If this is the case then the publishers of these three Military-oriented newspapers have betrayed the trust of their uniformed readers, their families and all others upon whose largesses these rags have build their reputations (and business). Any of these three papers containing this or similar content should be immediately and severley censured and their special status within the DoD reviewed and revised.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:31pm on Jun. 5, 2006 Put The Uniforms Back In Charge
By Yahuti
I have been submerged in research for the past several months. Two writing projects I have underway (one fiction, the other not) each took curious twists and pulled me in the same general direction. They each brought me to the same research topic: The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986.
Research notwithstanding, I simply loath and detest the outcome of that legislation twenty years after its enactment; and have to say that I and many of my generation of military officers saw it coming. Goldwater-Nichols is one of the prime motivators behind my retirement, and many others. I simply could not see myself in the military under a system and regime that seemed all too easy to predict twenty-odd years ago. Suffice it to say, most (if not all, and more) of our most dire predictions concerning G-N have become realities.
So why would I burden RedState and its collaborators with such historical mundacities in the form of a Diary?
Simple. The G-N Act realigned responsibilities and authorities within and between the Department of Defense and its staffs and agencies (and now - Commands); within the Military Departments between the Service Secretaries and their staffs and Service Chiefs and their Staffs; and between and amongst them all. I have always been convinced and remain convinced that within the DOD alone, the effects of the G-N Act would easily support scores of doctoral dissertations. Anybody on RS aware of any related dissertations? I'd like to read them.
Apart from strictly the DOD, the G-N Act subtly but significantly realigned and re-weighted many of the basic relationships between the DOD and all other Executive Departments and Agencies. I will leave that new set of relationships for scholars of another time.
For now, and for RedStaters with an interest, background and predilection for such arcane topics, let me share a few of the least desirable aspects of G-N. Each lends themselves to research and, especially to fiction - since much of the alteration in relationships would make good fiction if they weren't such poor reality. All of them, in my opinion, have produced unpredicted and unwanted effects upon the nation's current abilities, methods, means and directions in waging war and surviving peace.
Here are some of my general conclusions. I would appreciate any and all of your comments and reactions to them (Streiff, Nick Danger [wherever you are] and others among you - you know who you are - might as well lock and load).
Before Goldwater-Nichols spilled the night soil twenty years ago:
- The Secretary of Defense was simply a Cabinet Officer and did not conduct himself as the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of all America's military forces. Neither the Secretary of Defense nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff functioned as if they were in the military operational chain of command. They advised the Commander-in-Chief and supported and assisted the respective Military Departments in the conduct (and planning and preparation for war). Secretaries of Defense did not fire, nor did they select Service Secretaries and service Military Chiefs.
- Many of the authorities and responsibilities for Intelligence Operations, Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Procurement, once the preserve of the individual military departments and their staffs, were siphoned up from the military departments into the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) where once only oversight was exercised. Along with these responsibilities and authorities went the 3-star proponents from the military departments who are now deputies to 'suits' filing nominative positions in the OSD - rather than being a principal staff proponent for those activities for his service chief and department secretary.
- Like it or not, agree on not, many (many, many) of the Intelligence Community's professional (from analysts to collection, counterintelligence, security, etc.) positions throughout the community (yes, the dreaded CIA as well) were filed by military active duty personnel. Also, the three individual Military Department Intelligence Organizations from their respective staffs down through the field provided some (if not most) of the best intelligence products (HUMINT significantly - and field support for the dreaded NSA) throughout the intelligence community. While the FBI was engrossed in white collar crime, the military conducted most and some of the best counterintelligence and counter-espionage, counter terror (and related) operations in the world. While the CIA was concerned with 'national technical means of collection' the military was running agents all over the world. Those days are gone. The military's intelligence activities are focused now mainly upon tactical issues. Almost every intelligence activity beyond that has been siphoned up among the 'suites' in OSD - where there has traditionally been little (if any) capability to perform the functions.
- Special Operations, once mainly United States Army Special Forces is now a multilayered, multiservice ménage, encrusted by two additional layers of general officers, centralized at the Joint-level (that means OSD) and directed mainly from Tampa by a 4-star command which controls most of the purse strings and all of the politics.
There are more, many more effects of the G-N Act twenty years after enactment, and depending upon ones view they are either desirable or not. My conclusions toss up here for the RedState red meat eaters are simple: The G-N Act did little for the defense of this country but enlarge the power and authority of the Department and Defense (thus, the Secretary of Defense) at the expense of the Military Departments mainly to the detriment of all those functions performed well and historically by the military departments to manage their respective business and prepare for the nation to fight wars and manage the peace.
Don't look to professional military people to support my conclusions. Most of their careers have been performed under the G-N regime. They don't know any better because they don't know any different. That might provide some insight into why the United States could crush the Iraqi military in days, but are still not able to manage the peace; and, especially to eradicate a cult of barbarians whose sole mission is to slaughter innocents by the hundreds, not with small arms or artillery fire - but by ambush. Want to know why the U.S. was able to win the war in Iraq and mismanage the peace? Look to the twenty-year effects of Goldwater - Nichols.
This nation doesn't need to rush into a radical redesign of our military and its war fighting capabilities and systems so much as it very badly needs to first revisit and repair the civilian/political/bureaucratic blanket that smothers it. American 'uniforms' would have knocked the socks off Hussein in Iraq or in Kuwait or most any other tin-pot wowser almost anywhere on earth without the 'suits' getting in the way.
If the 'suits' had not gotten in the way it is almost a certainty the 'uniforms' would have Iraq's so-called insurgency well in hand by now. Why? Because they would have had the responsibility and authority to plan for that aspect of the campaign - and not overlooked it. The U.S. military is supposed to be subordinate to our national political leadership. It is and always will be. But the G-N Act took things way too far by inserting civilians into military planning and operational processes simply by usurping the respective authorities and responsibilities from the military departments.
Here's a thought: Cut the Office of the Secretary of Defense in half, perform a restructuring of all Defense Agencies, convert all of those positions to military slots and give them to the war fighters. Revisit and rewrite the Goldwater-Nichols Act and return the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to their presidential advisory capacity. Allow the war fighters to once again assume responsibilities for waging war and securing peace, and not to simply take the heat for the failure of either.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:14pm on May 3, 2006 Moussaoui Gets Life for Role in Sept. 11
By Yahuti
P'tew . . .
Any country incapable of killing those intending to destroy it, and it's citizens - will one day succumb to them.
Moussaoui's jury be damned; and may they and their issue live to regret this despicable, weak decision; and the open-handed slap in the face to 911 victems and their families and loved ones.
The message to the world and all terrorists in it is unmistakeable: Kill as many Americans as you like, at home and at work, and it will cost you little.
I am ashamed!
I no longer fear for this country. I believe it is beyond saving.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:43pm on Jan. 30, 2006 What Motivated Kerry? Really?
By Yahuti
Earlier today a couple of old Grand School chums and I were discussing Kerry's motivation to 'yodel in' (one of the best lines describing the event) a call to arms from Switzerland.
We all know that on its face, his efforts seemed futile from the beginning. Indeed, this afternoon the vote for cloture finally ended the drama.
So, is Kerry really as politically dense as this move makes him appear? Is he simply naive? Is there some greater, darker plot hatching up his sleeve?
The stupid and naive ideas got the larger number of votes in our group. But, we hit upon and discussed another possible reason for his antics; one seemingly not considered publicly.
I put the idea before RedState for ideas and commentary. Where better way to shake the mold off the sails? Here it is:
Kerry's (and Kennedy quickly in support) actions seemed not to benefit anyone but the Republicans, Alito and George Bush. We can see no benefit to any Democrat from Kerry's bugle to the charge.
Except John Kerry.
But how he might benefit from his obviously foolish actions is an altogether different thing.
Is Kerry conducting guerilla warfare upon his own Minority leadership? Harry Reid is back-pedalling fast, maybe towards the brink regarding his 'contributions' from the Indian tribes. He failed utterly to launch a credible campaign early on against Alito. Is he vulnerable within his own party - if nowhere else?
Was Kerry attempting to strip the Senate Democratic leadership's 'political cover' with their leftist interest groups (and greatly enhance his own at their expense) by making them commit to a nonsense filibuster vote; or go on record as refuting such a vote?
Is Kerry positioning himself for a leadership position in the Senate in preparation for the next election?
Is it possible he can see himself as either a Minority or a Majority leader in the near future?
If you were Kerry, could you realisitcally see yourself as the Democrats' next presidential candidate; or would you assess a Senate leadership position as the more viable option?
Have we missed the true meaning of Kerry's 'bold stroke'? Have we been nuanced?
What are some of R/S's thoughts on why Kerry launched this inane mission, only to go down to defeate by 70 (+) votes.
My group of old Hoya Grad students (not to be confused with the present bunch) smell a rat, and suspect Kerry has something up his sleeve. I suspect they give him too much credit for nimblemindedness.
What do you think?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:42pm on Jan. 27, 2006 The great warrior and strategist, Jack Murtha
By Yahuti
just declared terrorist actions in Iraq to be a Civil War. He goes so far as to claim that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq.
I've written enough about this military poseur here on RedState and elsewhere. Now it is time for this dolt to be recalled to active duty, courts martialed and stripped of his commission, his rank and his military retirement - then placed in confinement.
He goes beyond simple treason- and steps boldly into both sabotage and subversion of national security/strategy, and the safety of military personnel in a war zone.
This turkey needs to be plucked.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060127/0943
520685.htm&ewp=ewp_news_1205murtha
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:07pm on Mar. 22, 2005 Very Conflicted on Schiavo.
By Yahuti
Whatever may be one's private opinions about the Terri Schiavo situation (and I certainly have my own), we ought to be thinking about larger issues - beginning now - if it isn't already too late.
Are Terri Shaivo's circumstances worth what appears now to be a new and extremely intrusive government (local, state, federal and legislative, judivial and executive branches) overarching relationship in extremely private family affairs?
My wife and I completed Living Wills and certain other documents addressing circumstances that hopefully never occur. What does this new level of government intrusion mean for the agreements between my wife and I?
In my view the facts that Mr. Schiavo is in another relationship and stands to gain from Terri's demise - are irrelevant to the case. Despicable, maybe - yes. But irrelevant. The opinions that Terri's husband has ulterior motives, that he is not trustworthy, etc. are simply that: Opinions. And, what do those opinions have to do with the legalities attendant to the case? Apparantly, some think that Mr. Shiavo's conduct is sufficient to cast doubt upon his statements that he is exercising Terri's oral intent.
I am not an attorney but I do have questions on the law of this case. Will any of you attorneys please explain:
- Has Terri's husband broken any law?
- Who, under these circumstances, is her legal custodian?
- What is her husband's legal relationship towards Terri vis-a-vis her parents; the courts, the congress, the president?
I am not trying to be argumentative here. I would like to understand these relationships because - now - they will affect all of us in future.
What happens now if I am reduced to a state similar to Teri Schiavo, and my wife enables my Living Will only to have another family member refute it for their own reasons?
As a layman I believe we just witnesed a tectonic shift in both family and medical law; certainly in the relationship between just about every level and form of legal authority in America - and my intimate relationship with my wife. Am I correct? Does every level of American government now have a box office seat to witness my last words to my family - if they choose?
If I am correct, in whole or in part? If so, what does it mean for our conservatism to accept the fact that our positions on Terri Schiavo made us complicit in instituting the most profound government insertion into American private lives - probably in our history as a nation?
Are Americans now collectively at risk of Federal authority hovering over our deathbeds? Looking at this case from my layman's point of view I am finding myself quite conflicted. If my fears are valid, I have to ask myself whether one American's tragic circumstances are worth the overall result.
Was there not another way?
Or, am I being a little too overreactive?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (25) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:43pm on Mar. 11, 2005 Old Issue: New Topic
By Yahuti
Straying just a smidgeon from current issues; - Putting aside the issue of treason - I am of the opinion that Lieutenant General James Longstreet was 100% correct in his assessments during the three-day battle of Gettysburg; and that Robert E. Lee was 100% in error in all his major judgemnents at the same place; and monumentally in error several times elsewhere.
Further, I am of the opinion that Robert E. Lee's reputation as a 'great' general was earned before he confronted his first competent Union general - and failed dismally after that event.
That's just my opinion.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:34am on Mar. 8, 2005 What About Our Southern Border? Mexican Chutzpah!
By Yahuti
A Mexican official recently demonstrated the temerity to seek U.S. assurances that his countrymen's rights are not abused after they illegally steal into America. He is concerned that Americans whose rights are being abused and their communities swamped by criminal cross-border infestation - will do something mean to the infiltrators. Read it here : http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050308-121241-8430r.htm.
:. . . The Mexican government has asked U.S. officials to ensure illegal-immigration protesters patrolling the Arizona border next month do not abuse Mexican nationals caught illegally entering the United States. In a diplomatic note to U.S. officials, Geronimo Gutierrez, undersecretary for North American affairs at Mexico's Foreign Ministry, suggested it was "very probable" the protesters could violate the rights of illegal aliens, and that they must be monitored. . . "
I'm looking for some R/S opinions on the broader topic of illegal immigration - especially from Mexico. For example"
- What `rights' accrue to another country's citizens after they illegally enter America - and remain secreted?
- In the absence of anything approximating sufficient USG protection - what rights do U.S. citizens maintain to protect their local communities from illegal alien infestations?
- In Mexico's case: Is the GOM duty-bound to assist the United States in reducing the illegal over-the-border flow of its own citizens?
- Is Mexico assisting America to secure its borders from infestation? Or is it, in fact, complicit in its citizens' furtive flights across our borders?
My own views on this matter might not be considered `progressive'. For example: If State and Federal programs do NOT protect communities. I feel strongly that they have every right to protect themselves. That includes searching for, arresting and incarcerating any and all illegals in their jurisdictions. I view the process similar to apprehending local burglars, breakers'-and-enterers', vandals and vagrants. The devil would be in the detail here, of course - but details can be worked out.
I also feel that Illegal aliens accrue absolutely NO AMRICAN CONSTITUTIIONAL RIGHTS when captured after illegal entry. Period. No rights.
Illegal aliens certainly should not receive any better treatment than our own Japanese-American citizens received in California during WWII - simply because they were there - legally.
I am beginning to develop the notion that the GOM is doing nothing to restrain its own citizens from breaking American law by their illegal entry into this country. We share borders. Where is the Mexican version of the US Border Patrol? The cited Mexican official demonstrated a little too much chutzpah for my Neanderthal tastes. His actions might be indicative of the necessity for America to develop a new diplomatic paradigm for its relations with Mexico (and other LA countries, as well). I suggest we begin with developing a paradigm that holds America and its Citizens' interest at at least the same level as Mexico's - and its fleeing citizens.
Finally, the issue is greater now that simply Mexican border-jumpers and in-your-face- official Mexican attitudes about them. The issue is now as much if not more a national security issue. There are clear indications that international terrorists have noted the relative ease with which illegals defeat our Southern border security. I am of the opinion that Mexican border-jumping should predominate now as a national security issue, rather than simply an immigration issue.
So, considering the above, what are your views on:
- The Bush administrations efforts (or lack thereof) to protect our southern borders?
- What SHOULD BE DONE by the Federal Government about protecting our southern border?
- What CAN BE DONE by state and local communities to protect themselves from an avalanche of aliens?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:20pm on Jan. 29, 2005 War & Antiwar. Some insights for azizhp and others.
By Yahuti
A week or so ago (A lifetime in `blog years') a number of RedStaters exchanged comments in a string on antiwar topics. My commentary stated essentially that antiwar activities produced a calculable effect in the war zone for which protestors (free to protest) must be held at least partially accountable. I employed a figure of speech to make a point. In effect I said: Antiwar activities have the effect of increasing the number of magazines in the enemies' rifles they use against our soldiers.
After some frivolity with my figure of speech and something a little more than a cavalier treatment of the subject, azizhp came to grips and challenged me thus:
Azizhp Challenged:
". . . seriously, if its possible to illustrate via example just how free speech against war results in a dead American soldier, I'd like to know. Because if you can convince me of a casual link, I'll be silent . . ."
I posted a thorough response to this challenge that, for some reason, did not appear. I discovered this as I was preparing for a business trip abroad, and stated as much in RS before departing. Azizhp returned with a skeptical response, to which I replied, almost as I was going out the door, that I would pick up the topic when I return, and provide him a serious answer. I returned home on the 27th, and am preparing to leave again on Sunday the 30th. So - I figured I had better keep my word to azizhp.
Something happened to me on the way to this response.
It is the reason why I am answering azizhp as a diary entry rather than within the original string.
I experienced an epiphany.
I'll answer azizhp next below, then explain the epiphany at the end of this entry.
By the way, we weren't talking about `free speech'. We were talking about public antiwar utterances, and conduct. I have several different approaches to the answer but will rely upon the one below.
Here you are azizhp.
This is a URL that should give you want you need for an answer. I have included excerpts beneath.
[[ In 1972 Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and others traveled to North Vietnam to give their support to the North Vietnamese's Government. When she returned to the United States, she advised the news media that all of the American Prisoners of War were being well treated and were not being tortured.
As the American POWs returned home in 1973, they spoke out about the inhumane treatment and torture they had suffered as prisoners of war. Their stories directly contradicted Jane Fonda's earlier statements of 1972. Some of the American POWs such as Senator John McCain, a former Presidential candidate, stated that he was tortured by his guards for refusing to meet with Jane Fonda and her group. Jane Fonda, in her response to these new allegations, referred to the returning POWs as being "hypocrites and liars."
The Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1995) published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded:
"It was essential to our strategy" referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts "to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement."
Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses." Mr. Tin surmised that: "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Mr. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) said the 1968 Tet Offensive was a defeat.
The military defeat of North Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968 became a political victory for North Vietnam because of anti-war demonstrations and the sensationalism of the news media. The North Vietnamese interpreted the U.S. reaction to these events as the weakening of America's resolve to win the war. The North Vietnamese believed that victory could be theirs, if they stayed their course.
From 1969 until the end of the war, over 20,000 American soldiers lost their lives in a war that the United States did not have the resolve to win. The sensationalism by the American news media and the anti-war protests following the 1968 Tet Offensive gave hope to Communist North Vietnam, strengthening their belief that their will to succeed was greater than ours. Instead of seeking a successful resolution at the Paris Peace Conference following the disastrous defeat of the 1968 Tet Offensive, they employed delay tactics as another tool to inflame U.S. politics. This delaying tactic spurned further anti-war demonstrations. Those who sensationalized their reporting of the war and those who supported anti-war demonstrations are guilty of giving our enemy hope. Because of their actions, they must share partial responsibility for those 20,000 + Americans deaths. ]]
- Azizhp, there's your answer -
My Epiphany -
Using a Vietnam era example here matters not, rather than modern examples for a modern war.
Why?
Because, methods, arguments, style and most other elements are similar; and, the usual suspects from that era are, in the main, the very same usual suspects we see now; - only with a new generation of recruits.
How do I know?
I was there then, and I am here now.
And that brings us to my epiphany.
Azizhp and any other RedStater are welcome to comment upon what follows.
* * *
Looking for material to answer azizhp opened some deeply embedded sensitivities in me; some I was completely unaware of, others I managed to bury very deeply over the years. These came accompanied with a series of memory vignettes that provide several hours (so far) of remembrances I might have been able to live without for the remainder of my life.
So that you know: I spent more than two tours in Vietnam with an unique American combat unit, and additional time elsewhere in the region with `other' us allies in similar roles. Ditto Africa. Ditto Latin America. So, from the top, this is for those of you who contemplate war; and those of you who subscribe to antiwar.
Wars & Those Who Fight Them:
- I am not certain there is such a thing as a moral, just or good war- regardless of whomever did what to whom. However, I am certain that whatever else they may be, some wars MUST BE FOUGHT. Some wars more than others. I harbor a deep and abiding suspicion that most of the major wars and conflicts might have been avoided - if there had been any serious intention to do so.
- Wars and other conflicts on constants on our species' timeline. They have always been with us and most likely always will. Therefore, the wise nation, although not necessarily an aggressor, should be willing (and able) to fight - even preempt - if a threat becomes serious enough. Pacifism under all circumstances is NOT conducive to national longevity. For every moral, ethical, legal or any other form of argument against war, there are those who will ignore or trivialize them - just before they go to war with you.
- For every war or conflict found to be illegal, immoral unethical by a group or groups, that same group or groups will support others - for their own reasons. For example: What is the significant difference between Milosevic (sp?) or Hussein? Hitler or Stalin? You get the point.
- In America, military organizations do not initiate wars. They prosecute them. Whether or not our military succeeds in prosecuting a war has less to do with them than it has to do with those who wage war - US politicians - and the social forces that they cite as validation for their actions.
- Citizens do not become soldiers because they are compelled to do so any longer. There is no draft. Citizens volunteer for military services for their own reasons. Citizens, as soldiers, do not engage in close combat with any enemy for altruistic reasons. They fight, kill and die at the point of the bayonet - for each other. Unless a person can fully understand why a soldier will roll over on top of a hand grenade and sacrifice himself for his buddies; or understand why a young person will obey an order very likely to end in his death; or why another soldier will issue the order in the first place - they have no reason either to question or criticize these acts, or them persons who commit them.
- Soldiers make sacrifices and endure tribulations that no one other than they can either understand - or appreciate. Soldiers, by-and-large, trust their superior officers and noncommissioned officers; they trust their civilian leaders and the commander-in-chief (unless those persons have done something to specifically deserve otherwise). Soldiers like to believe in their cause - thought it isn't necessary that they understand all the nuances.
- No one wants peace more than a soldier. It is just that he or she is prepared to sacrifice for it when others will find, manufacture or borrow any and all arguments why the effort is senseless, immoral, unlawful, etc., etc..
AntiWarriors:
- Exercise that right to the fullest if you will. But, remember, whether you agree or not, like it or not, someone out there is willing to take the bullet for you (and others) to exercise that right.
- For those with religious, moral and other honest reasons to be against war - there are others in your midst willing (and likely succeeding) in proselytizing your honest horror of war for far different reasons than you might expect. Only after we are able to understand the relationships between an antiwar position and an antimilitary position and anti-American positions, organized World Peace organizations will we be able to appreciate the overall effect of a single anti-warrior.
- The media might well be the enemy. Check this out: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/
Also, it all didn't start with Dan Rather and CBS today. I recommend to you this report: TV and National Defense: An Analysis of CBS News, 1972-1973, by Ernest Lefever: A study for The Institute For American Strategy. 1974.
Here are a couple of excerpts from the CBS and the Vietnam War segment of the study. See if you can detect any familiar elements over thirty years later;
The preponderant weight of critical CBS reporting and interpretation on Vietnam was directed against the U.S. military presence there, and particularly against U.S. mining and bombing initiatives in the North. Washington also was criticized for being `overly influenced by Saigon," for its troop withdraw policy, for committing `atrocities" in Vietnam and for deceiving the American public about the whole situation.
Does any of this ring familiar? How about this. . . .
Senator Edward Kennedy stated: "We know that thousands of soldiers of North and South Vietnam and tens of thousands of innocent men and women and children will die in Indochina n 1972 for the simple reason that President Nixon will not allow the Saigon government to falter until he is secure at home for another term of office." Kennedy also accused the president for `Posturing for political gain.
I consider it a truism that antiwar activities in America do not occur primarily as a result of some spontaneous moral upheaval. They have for decades been sponsored and provoked by those with other, larger agendas, and during the Cold War mainly by foreign intelligence agencies. Here in America, radical political elements and much of the media - a trend going back to our own Revolutionary War, have historically hijacked heartfelt and honest antiwar activities.
So, for those of you wearing your antiwar headbands, remember . . .
- You are not alone.
- Antiwar activities do not help American soldiers in the field. They encourage their enemies. That goes for Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the Philippines, and virtually anywhere Americans go to die under the bayonet. And, it might be axiomatic.
- Soldiers do not appreciate your bold antiwar actions at home. They respect your right to be against the war, but they hardly respect you for your safe and distant efforts to encourage their enemies. They take your antiwar activities personally - because your actions are thought to create more danger for them and the greater likelihood that they (or worse yet - their buddies) will be harmed by that one bullet shot from that one enemy soldier that would not have been there had your efforts not encouraged him. Also, it is NOT necessary for you to either believe or appreciate these notions.
- By all means be against this war or any other war - you might find friends in some startling places. But, be very solicitous of your public utterances and activities - after the shooting and killing starts. Because, at that time your efforts will help only those killing your countrymen. Don't believe it go back above to Mr. Tin's comments. He knows.
So. Back to my original point in the string. Be against this war, it is your right. It is also your obligation (these usually accompany `rights') to express your sentiments in a fashion that does not harm our men and women in the field. Because: You cannot escape responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Argue any or all these points if you wish. I am outta here tonight for yet another trip to the Far Abroad (Thank you, Diplomad), and will return the end of the week to re-engage.
I'll make this offer: If any RedStater wishes to debate these comments directly with me - he/she can let me know by email (see my profile). I would be pleased to do my best in the time I have without unnecessarily overloading the RS site.
Ciao.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:04pm on Jan. 14, 2005 Thurgood Marshall: Historic Tidbit
By Yahuti
Who is familiar with Thurgood Marshall's relationship with Samuel Clemmons?
You have 10 seconds: Ten. Nine. Eight. . . .
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:41am on Jan. 9, 2005 Should Washington D.C. be . . . . . .
By Yahuti
represented in Congress as are the 50 states' ie., 2 Senators and 1 or more Congressmen.
The issue floats from time to time, and has recently breached the surface again.
I say: NO
A jurisdiction that relies primarily on the Federal Treasury for its revenues cannot function as a self-sustaining entity.
If Capitolistas are so hard over on the issue - I say give that land (and the property, and the voters) back to the state of Maryland whence they came. Make them citizens of an existing state.
Let's not create a new state simply for the benefit of one of the largest, revenue-consuming, most dense clusters of entitlees in the country.
But. That's just my opinion.
What's yours?
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:56pm on Jan. 5, 2005 Wow! What a relief . . . Alert The Diplomad
By Yahuti
Browsing through my newest edition of ARCHAEOLOGY Magazine (January/February 2005) I was swept off my feet to learn that - from Rome - it was announced that the United Nations only moments ago, created the "Blue Berets" - a rapid reaction force.
This elite special operations unit sits - levitating and all atremble - waiting to be "invited to deploy to countries whose cultural heritage is threatened by war or national disaster".
Imagine that.
The entire SE Asian oceanic basin is swept away by tidal wave, hundreds of thousands are dead and/or missing (the UN is [mainly] still missing), hundreds of thousands more are suffering from the effects of thirst, hunger and exposure, entire communities are completely wiped out; and while the world sends billions in relief to assist (even we 'stingy' American buggers are offering our piddling assistance) the survivors - the United Nations forms a corps of Blue Berets to fly in and preserve whatever aspect of the afflicted nations' cultural heritage needs saving.
No word yet as to the BB's weapons, doctrine, tactics and equipment.
Good LORD!
Save the 'cultural heritage' of entire populations at unimaginable risk of destruction themselves! Imagine all of the possible cynical motivations one might conjure for this latest UN malfunction.
When WILL we rid ourselves of this insulting, ineffective farce?
Let's make Kofi an offer he can't resist. Let's offer to drop the OFF investigation if he will tear up his contract and boogy back to equitorial Africa where his deadly and corrupt effect can be localized.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
