Private Warfare
Largely unnoticed in the spate of news from Washington was a report on legislation introduced by both Democrats and Republicans to force “the State Department to designate the Pakistan-based Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization”:
“You cannot negotiate with terrorists, and in my view that’s exactly what the Haqqani Network is,” bill sponsor Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “I have urged the State Department to designate Haqqani as an FTO for more than two years. Meanwhile, the organization continues to kill Americans in Afghanistan and launch brazen and indiscriminate attacks against innocent men, women and children in the region.”
The Haqqani network, some readers may be surprised to learn, is actually a family business. It is an Afghan/Pakistani family that has car dealerships, money exchanges, and construction companies as well as an international subsidiary engaging in terror. The famous Mullah Omar is the corporate face of Haqqani Inc., and an essential part of their regionally famous brand:
The Haqqani network’s financial interests are extensive, spreading out from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Persian Gulf, south and east Asia, and perhaps reaching as far as Latin America. As early as the 1970s, Jalaluddin Haqqani began to cultivate a financial support system in the Persian Gulf, where he made connections with wealthy Gulf Arabs (as well as the Saudi intelligence service), thereby laying the groundwork for his close relationship with Arab sponsors, including Osama bin Laden. Those relationships are today maintained by other family members, like Nasiruddin, who has made multiple fundraising trips to the Persian Gulf.
The Haqqani network also runs legitimate businesses — many of them linked to the economic empire of the Pakistani military and security establishment — such as car dealerships within some of Pakistan’s largest cities, money exchanges, and construction companies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Haqqanis’ illegal operations include lucrative smuggling networks to strip timber, minerals, and other precious goods from Afghanistan and sell them in Pakistan and beyond. And the network profits from kidnapping, extortion, and protection rackets on both sides of the border.
“…it’s a Afghan/Pakistani family that has car dealerships, money exchanges and construction companies as well as an international subsidiary engaging in terror”
Boy that sounds familiar. Except in the case of Bin Laden, dad tended to keep his hands clean. Who knows what his real relationship was with little O’sammy.
“Mention “Blackwater” and you will likely be told they are war criminals.” Yeah, extend that to Executive Outcomes. Using PMSC’s does put ethics on a slippery slope though. Imagine if George Soros managed to hire whatever Blackwater is calling themselves nowadays. Then perhaps the Koch brothers could hire whatever Executive Outcomes nowadays and have at it in some far flung cesspit. Maybe they could compete to see who could thin out the Haqqani Network. Now that would be progress.
In the end a soldier puts his uniform on one leg at a time and he entrusts himself to the state for whatever cause may call him to service. A mercenary may be no more immoral not because he is drawn by career and money but because in the end he can just say no. Try that before the UMCJ.
“Private Warfare.”
You mean like the Lybian “kinetic action” conducted by the U.S. military on Obama’s behalf without Congressional approval?
I would think as long as the actor has a duly issued “Letter of Marque and(/or) Reprisal” he should be good to go. (Or, as is usually the case these days, a signed contract with the DoD.)
It seems like much intellectualizing over fairly straightforward stuff. You have a legal contract with a government that will acknowledge you, or you are either a pirate, spy, or brigand. If the latter you get stood against a wall and shot, or hanged from the nearest yardarm (do we still have those on our ships?).
I guess I’m just a traditionalist dinosaur. I’m sure it’s much better to let the UN, lawyers, NGO’s, and academics work all this out so that the bad guys can keep doing what they do, and the good guys can spend all their time filling out paperwork and hiring defense attorneys.
I would go farther than Richemond-Barak and argue that the existing laws of war refer to an historical reality while everyone increasingly fights under another reality. Who fights in the Westphalian State manner any more? Today the US has drones over Yemen killing US citizens by Presidential authority. You have warlord families killing US troops in Afghanistan and selling cars in Pakistan. The President supposedly has a plan to deal with Syria, but will he get Congress to declare war? Did he in Libya?
But when anything goes wrong, here come the lawyers quoting the Geneva Convention. It’s about the only 100 year old document the Left professes to respect any more. But the effect is that the current legal regime does nothing to protect civilians from the most relevant threats and does very little to “humanize” war.
It should be possible for the victims of Mumbai to sue Pakistan or sue somebody. The people who were killed on September 11 died at the hands of a private army, did they not? By people who wore no uniform and were motivated by various considerations, including but not exclusively money, to do their deed.
If we could go back a few hundred years there might be private responses to these private attacks. But since we live in the Wetphalian state age, we leave it to the King or the country to defend us in our stead. But what happens when we see the Westphalian state negotiating with Haqqani? Well why not me too? How come I can’t start my own Murder Inc?
Perhaps because I can be arrested or discovered. Perhaps because I will obey the instruction not to. But surely it cannot be principle, for the principle is apparently that private warfare is allowed on the one side. Therefore why not on the other? And if it is to be outlawed on the both sides, then why is anybody talking to Hezbollah or Haqqani?
Well that is what lawyers should resolve. But it seems beneficial to all that they should craft a legal regime that works; is equitable and passes the common sense test.
There seems no more retrograde branch of the law than human rights law. It seems designed to restrain the threats least dangerous to civilians while empowering those who are the most dangerous.
w – your points go to the reason that I am so peeved with how everyone – U.S. , Israel the so-called civilized world allows ‘palestinians’ or as I call them fakestinians – to murder, embezzle, ruin lives all over the world without a peep.
All to further the ‘peas’ process.
see – Why Abbas Will Never Make Peace With Israel
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3159/abbas-peace
Another question is what is this doing to the perception by voters and elected politicians that the US State Department is of limited usefulness and not only ineffectual but harmful to US national interests? It was noted that during the heat of the Iraq campaign that the US Military was having to perform functions that should have been done by State Dept. personnel. It seems they couldn’t get enough State personnel to answer the call and even when they went to Iraq you couldn’t pry them out of the Green Zone. Back then it was postulated that to save money a cut in the State Department would be a good place to start.
“Have you got a light?” “No.” Then what good are ya?”"(BANG)”
that the US State Department is of limited usefulness and not only ineffectual but harmful to US national interests?
That reminds me of the anecdotes of deliberate policy sabotage in Iraq by State personnel in the runup to the 2004 election.
Should Romney become President, he has to expect an insurgency of sorts among the bureaucracy, and not just at State.
Wretchard implies but doesn’t dewll on one of the major distinctions between soldiers and mercenaries: the moral dimension of “just war”. It’s okay to go out and kill as an instrument of your nation’s monopoly on violence, because that provides you with the shield of virtue. It’s not okay to kill outside of that structure, because absent the “just war” rationale it’s in the same category as murder.
“Selfless defenders of the homeland” vs. “contract killers” is easy to understand, but what seems to be going on here is that the commercial aspect is being ignored and the distinction disappears for political reasons.
It’s words all right. The #1 task of diplomacy SHOULD be defining terrorism. By treaty.
That won’t happen because there is no money there. LOST is being pushed because there are TRILLIONS of dollars involved and everybody wants a basis point or two.
Define terrorism and it can be separated from insurgency. That would remove a major weapon from the hands of the 3rd world. No money in fighting terrorism.
The UN is also pushing a billionaire’s tax and a small arms treaty.
Money. If the UN goes after Billionaires, there is no place they can run to. That means massive bribes to UN officials or despots that will hide them.
A treaty on small arms would increase the payoffs from smugglers.
If America really wants to do something, we need to;
A) withdraw from the UN.
B) Re-do the Geneva Conventions.
That won’t happen because Politicians are judged on appearance not accomplishments.
LL3 is going to change that. Not sure he has thought that far ahead. The defence for an incumbent in a tough primary is to say; ‘Here is what I’ve done. Take or leave it.’
To defend their record an incumbent has to have one. So LL3 will force politicians to do SOMETHING besides dodge the issues and slide money toward their cronies.
Celer, Silens, Mortalis.
I think the “Just War” argument, reduced to its essentials, is whether a legitimate political process authorized the use of force. The justice of the cause, in democratic societies at least, is presumed to be satisfied by the public debate.
Once the public has declared war, it matters less how its agents are paid, for so long as they are serving under the same authority. Richemond-Barak makes the point that military contractors are employed by the belligerent governments. Hence they are not actually waging a “private war”, but rather they are private persons waging a publicly declared war. If Blackwater or Executive Outcomes were operating outside the employ of the belligerents (if in Afghanistan say they were working for a country outside the coalition) then they would be interfering. But if they were employed by the countries of the coalition, they are merely an extension of a politically legitimate policy, not an independent policy. And that makes a difference.
If you take that view, it is less important whether a person is private or uniformed than whether the use of force under which he operates is legitimately authorized or not. A contractor working for a Congressionally declared war is arguably more legit than any sort of person acting in an unauthorized way. The ultimate guarantor of “justice in arms” its passage through a political process. No process, no justice.
The uniform used to be the symbol of the process, a token that the man with a gun before you was under orders. But where there is no process, the uniform by itself is not an adequate substitute. Similarly, where there is a lawful process the absence of a uniform by itself does not mean complete illegitimacy.
Part of the reason why things are so confused is because the political forces went so far out of their way to legitimize private war — for so long as it was waged by anti-Western forces — for partisan political adantage. “The poor man’s F16; insurgents, fighters of conscience, activists, religious advocates” — the list goes on — these people were not described as mercenaries. Even when they were.
So when someone went and blew up a cafe in Jerusalem and the bomber’s family received a Martyr’s Check personally signed by Saddam Hussein, who called the bomber a “mercenary”? Surely not the press. After a time, even the word terrorist seemed better than “private soldier”. Yet what was the difference? And while that may have sounded cool at the time, little by little it opened up a gap and made a nonsense of the rules of war. The PC brigade pissed in the soup and now we all have to drink from it.
The rules of war were intended to encourage Westphalian war. To put men in livery and under discipline. To draw clear lines between combatants and civilians. Modern lawfare on the other hand, has done its best to make these distinctions meaningless. Is it any wonder that its application is now such a shambles?
Today the US no longer takes prisoners because the humanitarians have made it impossible to imprison them. Instead they are zapped by drone. Zapped not only in Afghanistan or Iraq, where they are least covered by Congressional authority. They are zapped wherever they may be found. In Africa, in Southwest Asia, and wherever else, according to a list which the President makes up, or causes to be made up.
And the humanitarians are just getting started. Now there is the implicit right to start wars — excuse me, kinetic military events — as part of the responsibility to protect. Why couldn’t this have been done through the political process? What happened to Just War? I think I know. Just War is Just for the Republicans.
Refuse to play the cut out private actor game. Declare war on Pakistan. Lance the boil.
@10: Thanks, Wretchard–I put the nickel in the right slot.
What is the difference between a “mercenary” and an “Armed Contractor”? If you oppose the war and oppose the Administration, you use the pejorative “mercenary.”
Can unarmed contractors be mercenaries, too?
Haqqani Network is a surrogate for the ISI. The Westphalian Nation-State referred to as Pakistan should be held accountable for every American killed by Haqqani kinetic operations, but that ain’t gonna happen because we need the road to Karachi opened.
The Haqqanis sound much like the US government. Semi-legitimate branches and violent-prone extra-legal actions as well.
Of course as Ron Paul says, our national security isn’t at all threatened by simply eschewing drone bombing, lying about WMDS, dismantling the provoking Empire before it collapses, and trying to restore our own health and legitmitacy.
There is another element of legitimacy which is sometimes overlooked. It is the question of who pays. Maybe the reason why Congress was given the power to declare war was because the competence over belligerence had to reside in who paid the bill, not simply in monetary but also in sanguinary terms. The people should control the armed forces because it is the people’s blood and treasure that is expended in hostilities, and Congress was (is, or should be) the representative of the people.
There is a disturbing tendency to alienate the power over war to people who will never, ever — even in principle — pay the bill. How often have we heard. “The United Nations should have the power to declare War.” Why, are they going to pay for it? Are they going to bleed for it?
No.
And that is ironically taken as proof that they should be in charge. For somehow it is regarded as evil for those who actually have to wage war to control it. Otherwise they might make “war for oil” or engage in “wars of agression”. Give over the power to declare war to unelected bureaucrats in the “international community” who are disinterested and all will be well. What could go wrong?
Thus, allowing the executive to employ the Armed Forces to carry out the “will of the International community” comes dangerously close to renting it out to people who won’t pay. Of course, maybe they do pay. They clap for the incumbent, sing his praises and hire him to make speeches after his term is up.
They justify the alienation and by and by everyone comes to believe that national armies are too important to be entrusted to the nations.
That’s not to say the President should be hamstrung in foreign policy, but ultimately any prolonged conflict should be referred to those who pay the bill and those who will ultimately be called on to risk their lives for it.
For the other aspect of the “mercenary” equation is the willingness to let yourself be used for the belligerent acts of others. To let yourself be used as a mercenary. When someone argues that American or British or Australian forces should be used at the behest of transnational authorities, what is that but employing them as mercenaries? The fact that is done for “free” does not change the situation. That is the other trope: that the sin lies in demanding the payment. The sin lies in the sin. Doing evil for nothing only proves the sinner’s stupidity.
I think the whole “mercenary” problem is related to the weakening of the link between responsible democratic national institutions and war. The people have lost control of war. The power has been siphoned off by unaccountable officials and that pilferage is recorded in the confused state of what is war today, who it is being fought against and who may fight it. The answer to this appear to be: a) there is no war if we don’t say it’s war; b) we don’t know who we are fighting, assuming we are fighting; 3) anyone may fight us, but only people strictly obedient to the Geneva convention may fight for us.
The self-appointed elites are embezzling powers. But they have left a paper trail.
The rules of war were intended to encourage Westphalian war.
Indeed. But they are really intended to encourage Westphalian *peace*. Subdue your local jihadis or we will destroy your capital city, including innocent women, children, and goats. Westphalian logic is collective in that is nationalistic, it does not deal in any entities smaller than a nation.
Wretchard – excellent article, as well as your additional commentary. I would add three points – there is still no official defiition of what consitutes a terrorist – the United Nations can’t agree on it, so no is held accountable; and (2) – there is an increasing trend to fight war by proxy – not just on the part of old cold war cast, but now the smaller countries are underwriting various groups to cause havoc or distraction in adjacent states; and (3) aligning with Wretchard’s No. 3 – the rules of engagement are wholly in favor of the terrorist.
wretchard@4 and@10 and@15
Standing ovation.
“Instead they are zapped by drone.”
Note that it is perfectly Okay for them to go terrorist plinking by remote control (or by cruise missiles, for Bill Clinton) but those same people have in the past called it a horrible idea to even attain the capability to intercept ballistic missiles.
“b) we don’t know who we are fighting, assuming we are fighting;”
Add to this the fact that we can’t ever admit who we are actually fighting. Note that in those massive and generally unsatisfactory messes called Korea and Vietnam, we may not have had declared war but we knew without a doubt that it was all part of the worldwide opposition to Communism. And we said that, frequently. Today we can’t even speak aloud what it’s all really about. Might offend someone, y’know.
Or as Agent 86 used to say, in the middle of some violent gun battle with the bad guys, “Shaddup 99! You want to make them mad?”
On the subject of private armies, a consultant I use thinks that the Money Trust has it’s own private armies a la Blackwater, and when the fit hits the shan in Europe we will really see who is sovereign.
I am not so convinced but it is a distressing idea.
@ 8. Chris
No, it sometimes isn’t. “Murder” is the killing of a human under specific conditions covered by law. Assumptions aside, we don’t always know the exact conditions under which private armies engage. The slain could in truth be bad persons, evil perpetrators. Ergo, we should be clearer. It’s a human slaying and we believe it might be egregious, but we can’t always say it was murder.
I’ve been thinking about that other “Axis of Terror”. Is North Korea a mercenary state?
They seem to be used as proxies by the Chinese, they sell arms, and have counterfeited US Currency in the past. The last isn’t such a big deal anymore since the Fed started doing it.
As an example of what happens when a government that does everything to you:
http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2955941&cloc=joongangdaily|home|online
.” How many defectors can Hanawon accommodate, and why are there more women than men?
A. Including the headquarters and the branch in Yangju, also in Gyeonggi, there are about 300 people there at the moment. About 70 percent of all defectors from the North are women, and there are two reasons for this: First off, women can travel much more freely across the country – they can even cross the Sino-Korean border – as traders and merchants if they just pay a certain amount of money to the authorities; secondly, North Korean men rarely work – they just stay at home, where they rarely even do household chores.
Once the women cross the border into China, they can easily camouflage themselves in society by marrying ethnic Koreans there. Some of their ethnic-Korean husbands help them defect to the South so they can both settle down here together.”
The implication (or accusation) is that our own conscription process was hardly different at the time. One could posit that the war’s most basic aim was to isolate violent men, hence the name ‘Joker’ with his bull–ting camera.
From Wiki: ‘According to US military commanders [Haqqani] is “the most resilient enemy network” and one of the biggest threats to the U.S.-led NATO forces and the Afghan government in the current war in Afghanistan.’
Are there any feints besides role-playing the enemy? Perhaps that’s how God knows each of our sins… if you dared shoot the devil, His wrath may be worse than if you had given your soul to Lucifer.
Of course it’s a sin not to believe evil exists. Auspiciously, our political process dictates what is and isn’t evil, and then plays God with the losers. Case in point:
So when someone went and blew up a cafe in Jerusalem and the bomber’s family received a Martyr’s Check personally signed by Saddam Hussein, who called the bomber a “mercenary”?
How many bombers made it to Jerusalem in one piece? Like the devil, Saddam made sure that the option to kill was always available. It’s hard to say what happened after that.
Just War is a theory, not a fact. IIRC it is a 16th or 17th century theory. We are now in the 21st century and Just War theory has pretty much been overwhelmed by history. There is only one valid theory of War. One thing that has been paramount since proto-humans first organized themselves against other humans. It will remain paramount as long as the human race exists. Win. That is the ONLY rule, the only Law of War. Everything else is Bullsh1t.
If the USA were to kill 50 million Iranians next Monday, it would take a lot of the allure out of terrorism. States that use terrorism as a political tool would understand that they are bringing a pack of skittles to a gun fight.
Those confused enough to consider killing 50 million people a crime are wrong. As Stalin pointed out, killing one man is a crime. Killing 50 million is a statistic. Twice as many as 25 million, half as many as 100 million.
Remember, Charlie don’t surf.
23. Baobo
Are there any feints besides role-playing the enemy? Perhaps that’s how God knows each of our sins… if you dared shoot the devil, His wrath may be worse than if you had given your soul to Lucifer.
Of course it’s a sin not to believe evil exists. Auspiciously, our political process dictates what is and isn’t evil, and then plays God with the losers. Case in point:
So when someone went and blew up a cafe in Jerusalem and the bomber’s family received a Martyr’s Check personally signed by Saddam Hussein, who called the bomber a “mercenary”?
How many bombers made it to Jerusalem in one piece? Like the devil, Saddam made sure that the option to kill was always available. It’s hard to say what happened after that
……………
The way Jesus put it was:
Matthew 10 NIV
28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12 NIV
4 “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
What is the intent behind officially designating the Haqqani Network as terrorists? Actually, what is the point of labeling any group as terrorist? Why don’t we just start simply labeling every terrorist/private army/whatever by the state(s) that sponsor them?
Because as Cannoneer @13 pointed out, the HQN is simply an extension of the Pakistani ISI. Every major attack that occurred in Kabul last year, including the attack on the US Embassy/ISAF HQ, was sponsored by Pakistan and carried out by HQN. This summer, things are much more quiet due to US Mil/SOF counter-HQN operations against HQN’s enclaves in Eastern Afghanistan, but mostly because Pakistan has recovered from their temper tantrum over getting caught red handed sheltering Bin Laden last May, AND the US gov’t just coughed up the billions in aid we’ve been withholding from them.
Make no mistake, Pakistan is the enemy. Why we continue to deal with them the way we do is beyond me. Must be part of that “smart” diplomacy I’ve been told so much about.
Anti-israeli policy has always been motivated by Arab money paid to a bunch of losers to make holy war. Arafat ended up leaving a fortune in Swiss accounts. The PLO and Gaza are a racket funded by Arabs and contributions (“humanitarian aid”) from gullible Western governments. World-wide the fervor of jihad is kept going by cash–the third-world version of the 501(c)(3) racket. Much of Earth’s supply of moral outrage is business, and that includes the knee-jerk left in the West. The hardcore are salaried. The true-believers are suckers. The labor unions are a prime example of this mechanism. There are very few, if any, NGOs that are not businesses to fundraise for the actual goal of financially supporting the people who run them. When has one of these organizations ever been satisfied with whatever concession they achieved? Why is middle east peace such an illusive goal? Agitation provides a living and public importance, especially to the social misfits and otherwise-unemployable thugs. Ironically, Christian charity and tolerance encourages this crap.
Screw human rights, international law, and all that jive. What is important is that when it comes to warfare at least, we have managed to ensure total state control, without citizens having any rights. And now you are talking about rolling back even this? Wretchard, you are being singularly unhelpful.
/sarc
27. Philadelphia
World-wide the fervor of jihad is kept going by cash–the third-world version of the 501(c)(3) racket. Much of Earth’s supply of moral outrage is business, and that includes the knee-jerk left in the West. The hardcore are salaried. The true-believers are suckers.
This is so exceedingly well-said that it bears repeating, particularly the last sentence.
CHANGING THE NARRATIVE
Definitely OT, for which I apologize, but I wanted to share this:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/11/inside-the-beltway-choosing-the-dream/
Can Americans discern between the “dreams” of President Obama and those of the Founding Fathers? The makers of the upcoming documentary film “2016: Obama’s America” hope so. “I’ve got a strong desire to defend against the changes in our culture, our life, our laws, our freedom. We now have someone in office who has professed a desire for change, and this has disturbed me,” producer Gerald R. Molen tells Inside the Beltway.
I confess to an obsession of wanting to recapture the American narrative from the well-entrenched left. I don’t consider this Quixotic, but do recognize that it will take a long time. Any and all efforts that present the American story and idea in a compelling and effective manner and that can reach a wide audience have my support.
@E2
Make no mistake, Pakistan is the enemy. Why we continue to deal with them the way we do is beyond me.
The Pakis got us by the hearts and minds, that’s why. Bush kept the US Mil footprint in Afghanistan relatively small primarily because his advisors recognized the precariousness of the Lines of Communications. Obama’s Surge was logistically insupportable, and now our gonads are in the vice. There is an incredible amount of stuff that has to be inventoried, collected, and retrograded the hell out of here, either by truck through Afghanistan and Pakistan to Karachi or by truck and rail through Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Russia and Latvia to Riga. Just getting the million dollar MRAPs outta here is going to be a major Charlie Foxtrot, let alone all the shipping containers the shipping companies want back. We get to pick which pirates will plunder us, and how much expensive gear to abandon.
31. Cannoneer No. 4
Not sure about that. The MRAPs are pretty much wore out. After paying to bring them back, they will have to be rebuilt. The total cost will exceed the price of a new one. The Military knows that, they just understand that the budget for bringing things home has money, the budget for new MRAPS is just not there. Another case of being penny wise and pound foolish.
The Apaches are in basically the same position. AH-64D was standard, although my son flew an AH-64B while he was there. It was the only one. It was also one of those ‘perfect’ machines. Every now and then an assembly line turns out a product that is exactly on spec everywhere. The Army got the money to start upgrading the ‘D’ to ‘G” ( I think) standards. Congress didn’t provide enough money to upgrade all the AH-64D’s. So about 200 of them will be sent to the boneyard. Why spend good money to ship an obsolete AH from Afghanistan to Arizona? Pull the Electronics, scrap the rest right there.
The ONLY thing of value to America in Afghanistan is our brave sons and daughters.
“The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government, without any other mode of power than what is founded on, and granted by courtesy. Held together by an unexampled concurrence of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition, is, legislation without law; wisdom without a plan; a constitution without a name; and, what is strangely astonishing, perfect Independence contending for dependance.”
Common Sense
By Thomas Paine
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
Re Wretchard #15: “The self-appointed elites are embezzling powers. But they have left a paper trail.”
That’s why educational establishment is busy working so the population cannot follow it.
32. stoicheion
At first I thought the last quote was referring to our time. It seemed right on. Then I saw it was Paine and the date was 1776. The last phrase I didn’t get “perfect Independence contending for dependance”
Was he saying the independence movement was insufficiently independence minded?
(He changes his tune radically when he crosses to France and starts writing about the french revolution.)
That reminds me of the anecdotes of deliberate policy sabotage in Iraq by State personnel in the runup to the 2004 election.
7. Don Rodrigo
That reminds me of the sabotage here at home in the runup to the 2004 election. I am referring to the very deliberate attempt (on the part of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and his enablers) to make it seem the President was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, which amounted to no less than an attempted political coup at the polls. The entire time, Secretary of State Powell knew the truth – that his own Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was responsible for the leak. And yet, he chose to remain quiet and let the majority of the American public think the President was culpable. So much for loyalty and honor and devotion to country above all.
It’s a little known fact that Powell wanted Armitage to be Rumsfield’s undersecretary for policy instead of Feith, and was more than a little put out that he didn’t get his way. Make of it what you will.
Re: the Pakistanis having us by the gonads…
I continue to promote the idea of declaring an independent state of Balochistan. There are multiple reasons for doing so:
–Many Balochs want their own country and would support the issue.
–We could have access to a deep water port and land corridor into Afghanistan.
–It would be fitting payback to the Pakistanis.
–We could maintain a fleet presence in the vicinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwadar_port
@ sirius
What land corridor into Afghanistan? Gwadar may possibly be an adequate port, but it’s out in BFP. I believe the road network from Gwadar to Chaman-Spin Boldak runs through Quetta, home of the Quetta Shura and a Predator no-fly zone.
If the Baluchis had their feces consolidated sufficiently to be an independent nation, they would have done it by now.
35. sirius
Agree completely that Powell is a complete scoundrel. And to think that he could have had the Republican nomination for President for the asking. But his wife was worried he would be assassinated.
And Fitzgerald, for all his high profile prosecutions of Libby and Conrad Black, has come up strangely short in Chicago. Wonder why?
Cannoneer @38
Baluchistan is one of the driest places on Earth. It’s British built railroad was considered a wonder of the age — since water had to be brought from the Indus, typically. (!)
Hence, the locals are in no position to eject the Punjabis — a project that got started in 1947 is still on the slow boil.
Since the Pakistanis get their motor fuel from methane deposits in Baluchistan, Islamabad is not ever going to give it up.
( Pakistan’s motor vehicle fleet is almost entirely powered by CNG, (!) trucks excepted. )
Islamabad is absolutely paranoid that the Baluchs will hook up with New Delhi, of course.
And, FYI, Baluchistan reaches all the way to the Indus, in the east; and almost to Bandar Abbas in the west.
It has been conjectured that Iran’s very first atomics will be used to mine Baluchistan somewhere east of Bandar Abbas; sort of a USMC repellant.
Re: Stoi@32
I agree with your point. At about 30 tons apeice they would be very expensive to ship back, they have no training or operational purpose stateside, and would not be legal to take out on the roads due to their weight. And the older ones, at least, are freakin’ useless off road. OTOH, consider that these vehicles have various technologies that we may not want to have available for reverse engineering by some of our supposed allies.
The bottom line is that the Pakistanis have been playing a double game with us since the 1980s, we have known it the whole time, we did not do anything about it before September 11th, and someone, somewhere made the calculation that it was more convenient to work out deals with them than go to the trouble of wiping what would be left of them off of our collective heel. As much as it pains me to say so, this goes back to the Bush administration, although as C4 has pointed out Obama’s decisions sure have not helped matters. The hope of reconsidering the aforementioned option seems fleeting, at best.
I find it ironic that the same folks who prattle on so much about “smart power” are the same ones who ignore the insights derived from learning about the local culture, identifying key factors, and applying those factors within an operational or strategic context. Having spent a little time in Civil Affairs, part of my job was to try to get a grip on these factors. Surely, if these folks understood the local culture, what we chalk up to victories for “smart power” and “realpolitik” are perceived as weakness in a culture where the mantra is “What’s mine is mine and what’s YOURS is mine!” Power, and respect, are determined in part by how well one is able to defend one’s interests, and one’s willingness to make those foolish enough to try to infringe upon them pay. Ideals are demosntrated in actions, not pretty words.
We have utterly failed to realize that this simple, brutal dynamic applies to us as well, and not just in the back room of some union hall in Chicago. The Pakistanis are making fools of us before their domestic audience, their proxies (who are killing American service members, by the way), and the entire world while our leaders posture and smile, in front of pristine styrofoam columns. After all, I guess that is just what smart people do, and they sure look good while doing it.
One wonders if the correct question to ask is how much thermite can we bring in, and how fast we can make more. Heaven forbid that anyone should drop any of it short and, I dunno, incinerate Islamabad or Karachi or something. But then again, nobody has ever called me smart….
/okay…sarc off, and back to my lurking perch!/
Strategic victory in the middle east will come by collapsing the demand for arab oil and converting the USA from an energy importer to an energy exporter. This story is getting into big finance calculations. Natural Gas Boom Hints At U.S. Energy Sufficiency Anyone interested in seeing how the USA can become an energy colossus read here.
Also huge shale deposits found in Israel on-shore, I mean OMG.
Europe is too fastidious (stupid) to produce their own, but whatever, Euro-dudes, what will be will be (and they will be producing their own in a year or two, resistance is useless).
“Was he saying the independence movement was insufficiently independence minded?”
Not sure about what he meant for 1776 but today I see that as a certain class of people with freedom that is the envy of humanity competing for food stamps and a monthly pittance.
I first read Tommy Paine in HS civics class. I was around 12 and too young to really appreciate him.
I’m impressed with Tommy and depressed by how much of Common Sense is applicable 236 years later. It is like nobody is paying attention.
“PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
“The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested.”
The post 1776 America lasted less then a generation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_Rebellion
The first blow to American freedom was by President Washington when he used troops to crush the Tax protesters of 1791. Freedom has been a losing ever since.
If we win the revolution of 2012 to 2018, then steps must be taken to prevent the inimical elements from under-cutting American freedoms.
“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.”
OK, that’s 4, I think
Celer, Silens, Mortalis.
A lot of points have already been covered so I will make my point short.
1. “The Haqqani network is the most aggressive terrorist organization targeting U.S. and host nation forces in Afghanistan.”
2. “…what’s holding up the designation? It seems that the Obama administration has two excuses. The first is that the White House doesn’t want to list the Haqqani network because it may upset the Taliban, with whom the Haqqanis are allied, and with whom the administration still seeks to negotiate a settlement upon the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.”
See page 1. scowl 50% down
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/terror-their-family-business_648234.html
I cast a skeptical eye on a president that has prayed in a mosque in Pakistan. 0bama has a bad habit of getting to bed with the enemy. I would guess that he now in bed with the Haqqani network in some form or another. It’s the only explanation of why he is holding up the FTO designation.
Given the number of lives at stake I believe it would be best to legally remove 0bama from Office as quickly as possible.
By the way, folks. I am now reading an incredible book, “September Hope” about the U.S. side of Operation Market Garden.
It’s unbelieveable what the 82nd and 101st went through there, and what they accomplished. It was like 19th Century warfare with 20th Century weapons.
What incredible soldiers!
Lots of different angles here. Don’t forget the Haqqanis probably hold the only remaining US “POW” (in Pak). Seems like lefties would be enraged about that, especially since he was taken in Afg when their boy was in charge, not during the evil Bush admin. But I guess as a leftie, it is all too easy to see the other side’s point of view. Feinstein’s tough talk is amusing though.
Gen Powell spent his whole military career evaluating officers for higher rank and responsibility and assignment to jobs critical to national security and the well being of our troops. Yet when given the chance to evaluate someone for the highest office in the land, he defaulted to race. Makes me wonder if that was the first time he did that or if there is a cadre of Powell affirmative action GOFO’s who have some other allegiance than the Constitution. Sorry, but it too easy to come to that conclusion when you see the Congressional Black Caucus in action.
It’s not up to us to broker peace in the Muslim world with our uniformed armed forces or with contract mercenaries. Only Muslims can do that and they have shown no real interest in doing so. And why should they when they have us stupid infidels to do most of the dying. We need to adopt a policy of staying off he ground in these Muslim countries. Putting troops on the ground in Muslim countries gets us nowhere and only causes more problems than are solved. Ten years in Afghanistan, thousands of lost lives and limbs, billions of dollars squandered and nothing to show for it.
Our involvement in AF/PAK has its roots in 9/11. Imagine if after that horrific attack as soon as we learned that most of the hijackers were Saudis as was OBL himself, we broke off diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and then took out most of their oil terminals. I can guaranteee you we wouldn’t be messing around with AF/PAK today and I can further guarantee you that these Muslim counries would be working extra hard to make sure that none of their citizens takes it upon themselves to commit acts of war against the U.S..
It’s time we leave that part of the world. Once we pull out of Afghanistan, there really isn’t much of a reason for even bothering with Pakistan. I know, I know, people are worried about terrorism and al Qaeda coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan again. Well, unless you totally want to occupy both nations for the rest of time, there isn’t much you can do about it. All you can do is warn the people in both countries that if they ever, EVER, mess with the United States again, we will rain down upon them unbelievable destruction, AND MEAN IT.
We will win no wars in that part of the world and we certainly will convert no one to see things our way. These are Muslim radicals we’re talking about, true Islamist jihadists. To them, the only good infidel is a dead infidel. But what we CAN do is discourage them from ever attacking us again. We have the power to do that, but it only works if you mean what you say and say what you mean.
The British Empire had the same policy. They couldn’t occupy every country in the world that was a threat to them, but they could intimidate nations and warn them that if attacked, they would retaliate with unbelievable force. And, for the most part, it worked. But the British always backed-up their threats with force and a huge military. No reason why we can’t do the same thing. The Islamists hate us not only because we’re westerners, they hate us because we’re over THERE. Time for us to leave and let them continue to slaughter each other like they’ve been doing for centuries. All we can do is say that if they ever attack us again, like they did on 9/11, we will destroy all of them.
You know, I have been reading the Belmont Club for years, and there is this constant recurring theme that “the next time” that the Muslims get out of hand and do what they do, something idiotically outrageous and criminal, we are going to do something like:
1) Nuke them
2) Nuke them all
3) No really, make them sorry they crossed us
And of course 9/11 was the fault of the KSA and we should’ve been tough on them. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
What color is the sky in your world? Do you REALLY think some US administraion (our government) is going to use NUKES to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands, let alone millions of men, women and children. Really? Nuke 100 million Muslims in Indonesia? 168 million Muslims in Pakistan? +80 million Muslims in Iran? Really? Regardless of what I think or the readers of the Belmont Club think, a huge part of our country would be totally appalled, and respond in an extremely negative way.
Consider what the Russians did in Chechnya, and suprisingly, they still have a Muslim problem. And yet the Muslim Assad takes their aid to fight other Muslims in his country (Syria). That there is some strategery.
I would settle for a cruise missile strike on the ISI building the next time these jokers in Pakistan or the Haqqani Network (in living color!) do something unpleasant. Or a strike on their uranium centrifuge facility. And they will do something unpleasant again soon, and we will do nothing of note. We can’t and won’t even control our borders or control the influx of Muslim immigrants. Basic things first.
You know, it’s not PC and it’s not cowardice (although there is too much sympathy for the poor little Third-world criminals in the State Department and the halls of Congress), it’s realism. Doing something like that would polarize the governments of the world, with most of them against us. Nobody wants the “Muslim problem” except Muslim countries (who are fighting with each other all the time), but nobody wants to see the nuke prohibition come off, because then it would be the strong against the weak.
Your starting premise is wrong, so everything else that follows is mistaken. The Haqqani are best likened to the mafia. They even have their own network of enforcers called the Khorosan Network active in the Paktika, Paktiya, and Khost provinces of of Afghanistan.
And Mullah Omar is not really their public face; he, of course, is the spiritual founder of the Taliban and most likely lives in Quetta, Pakistan. The Haqqani Network is based out of Miram Shah.
Yes, they make noises about being loyal to the Taliban and subordinate to MMO (as Mullah Muhammed Omar is known in the circles I run in), but it’s purely for PR purposes. The Haqqani could supplant MMO any time they wanted. They are also a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pakistani ISI.
The Haqqanis are easily the most lethal network fighting against us in Afghanistan. That’s because they are pros. They conduct after-action reports, adjust their TTPs (tactics, techniques, and procedures) rapidly to adapt to our operations.
Public shame means nothing to them. Understood as mafiosi, you must realize the only solution is to crush them and destroy their networks. They’re not motivated by religion (despite noises about Islam); they’re motivated by power and money.
I’m not going to belabor the point about Gwadar/Balochistan. It just seems to me a rather important location for tactical/strategic reasons relative to a whole host of problems/situations in that part of the world. But I guess the easy thing is to do is to just leave and bluster and threaten about what we will do next time if and when some new bad situation arises.
That will work, because we have absolutely no cred.
Don’t you think that when it comes right down to the bitter end that might is right and the idea of a self governable world is a massive unreachable utopian goal? I hate totalitarianism as much as the Founders did, but good GOD in heaven enough is enough. We have almost reached the stage when the individual has access to the same information that was once available to the men in power. Yet we are farther away from true freedom and liberty than at any time in history.
Think of the world as one big trailer park. Alright, who is praying for a really big ef’n class 5+ tornado? Anyway, back to the trailer park analogy.
India’s trailer is next to the camel farmer’s trailer and they aint friends. We live across the other side of the trailer park but the Indian’s are our friends, so when the camel farmer starts flinging his crap across the yard into the Indians yard we feel the need to help our Indian friends kick the crap back into the camel farmer’s yard. Now seein as we are living in the Park Manager’s trailer we have some power to exert in the trailer park, but because we have decided to let our mentally challenged children run the trailer park while we are away on a vacation to look at the big ditch and do a little gambling in Vegas (wink wink) our power is not used to help our Indian friends and instead we just throw stuff at the camel farmer hoping he likes it and leaves our mentally challenged leader to finish his video basketball game.
Now I am all for burning down the camel farmer’s trailer and such but the rest of the idiots living in the park are too addled by the telly and govt cheese to get off their obese asses and make the call. So here we sit hoping for a class 5+ to do our dirty work for us…
God bless Harry Truman!
Now where did I leave my coffee???
With “friends” like Blackwater, the U.S. Army does not need enemies.
Blackwater Guards Fired at Fleeing Cars, Soldiers Say
Blackwater USA guards shot at Iraqi civilians as they tried to drive away from a Baghdad square on Sept. 16, according to a report compiled by the first U.S. soldiers to arrive at the scene, where they found no evidence that Iraqis had fired weapons.
“It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting,” said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers reached Nisoor Square 20 to 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided.
His soldiers’ report — based upon their observations at the scene, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police — concluded that there was “no enemy activity involved” and described the shootings as a “criminal event.” Their conclusions mirrored those reached by the Iraqi government, which has said the Blackwater guards killed 17 people.
Tarsa said they found no evidence to indicate that the Blackwater guards were provoked or entered into a confrontation. “I did not see anything that indicated they were fired upon,” said Tarsa, 42, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. He also said it appeared that several drivers had made U-turns and were moving away from Nisoor Square when their vehicles were hit by gunfire from Blackwater guards.
*
Blackwater Is Soaked
The colonel was furious. “Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers.”
The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV. His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company.
One military contractor, who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution in his industry, recounted the story of a Blackwater operative who answered a Marine officer’s order to put his pistol on safety when entering a base post office by saying, “This is my safety,” and wiggling his trigger finger in the air. “Their attitude was, ‘We’re f—ing security; we don’t have to answer to anybody’.”
America is in a mess, has been for decades. We have no good leaders; we keep rotating bozos in and out of office. Clinton spent more energy chasing women than protecting our nation. It is not surprising that Osama Ben Laden judged we were weak minded, when military idiots housed our Marines on top of an munition bunker in Lebanon, so as not to offend the neighbors. He attacked us, using an ancient military axiom: If you are smart, and willing to die, you can hurt your enemy. We responded with an unwinable policy: wage war forever, without taking casualties, by spending our grand children’s wealth. We killed more Americans in a few hours, many times, in WWII than the summed death toll since 9/11/01. We won WWII, in four plus years. Hussein, and Ben Laden are dead, but no one knows what to do next.
In the 1980s, I read a technical article that speculated that if the 1000 nuclear power plants had been built in the US (We built ~ 100.) then we could have sold hydrocarbon fuels to Arabia. Today, they could make money at $5/barrel; we pay $100. Much of that profit goes to killers who hate us.
Since we abandoned nuclear power, circa Three Mile Island, 1979, we have accepted that 1,500,000 Americans have been killed on our streets and highways, roughly 500,000 by drunk drivers. Perhaps 5,000,000 are permanently crippled due to our societal decisions.
If we were not dependent, for our life sustaining energy, on the most backward, savage peoples on earth, we would have infinitely more options in dealing with them. Hungry ignorant sheiks act differently than fat billionaires. Unfunded, unarmed war lords are not that dangerous.
To paraphrase POGO, “We have met the enemy, and the dummy lives in Washington D.C.”
Having worked with and on both sides of the fence, you fail to point out that PMC’s, especially on the security side are defensive in nature. PSC’s do not conduct offensive actions, that’s not their lane. Each time I hear or read someones take on PSC’s, they always fail to point that out when trying to compare them with the military or “mercenaries”. It’s usually because the person doesn’t have a full understanding of MIL/PMC’s operations. This has been the cause of ignorance on this subject for quite some time. Not sure why it’s so difficult to understand, but there it is.
I’ve said it before here and I will say it again (it was many, many moons ago) No American President has the gonads to lite off a nuke anywhere in the World unless the US gets hit first! Your delusional to think it would happen! Yes it would be nice if Mitt had the balls to melt an Iranian Mountain or Pakistani hiding places but he don’t! Besides everyone here who thinks that sun drops on any country in the ME or Asia Minor isn’t going to dump bio hazards on many of the neighbors is a fool too! What do you think China might do or Russia having Radioactive fallout raining down? Far worse than Chernobyl fall out… Everyone needs to get over the “Nuke’m” talk.
US Congress tables resolution on Baloch self-determination: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=road+from+balochistan+to+afghanistan&view=detail&id=3A50725DAC5E70C25B0A0D99D3470D2F95389A28&first=1
Too bad. That would be a good start. In my estimation, Pakistan needs to be broken to pieces.
Charles W., I am with you on the lack of spine in our current crop of political animals. But I take exception to your assumption that “fallout” would be a cause for belligerent action by the neighbors of said targets.
The last thing you do when someone is shooting up the hood is go outside and cuss them out for stray bullets hitting your crib…
This:
One military contractor, who spoke anonymously for fear of retribution in his industry, recounted the story of a Blackwater operative who answered a Marine officer’s order to put his pistol on safety when entering a base post office by saying, “This is my safety,” and wiggling his trigger finger in the air. “Their attitude was, ‘We’re f—ing security; we don’t have to answer to anybody’.”
Never happened.
a) it’s a bastardization of a scene in the movie “Black Hawk Down”
b) the reporter believed it because he new nothing about handguns. – you can’t see the position of the safety lever of a holstered pistol.
23. Baobo
Here is an example of what Jesus was talking about.
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/07/gay_marriage_issue_splits_blac.html
JFSanders (#59) “The last thing you do when someone is shooting up the hood is go outside and cuss them out for stray bullets hitting your crib…”
I disagree, when were talk’n shoot’n up another gang members street they do come out the house and they do start shooting back! I don’t think Russia or China would start pop’n nukes at US but it sure would get tight and sweaty with some kinda of retribution for poisoning their lands…
Charles- I was merely postulating Beelzebub as God’s double-agent. It’s almost a yin-yang concept — an idea brilliantly illustrated in The Alternative Factor (aka Star Trek episode 27):
I have been trying to unravel why this world needs its enemies, and why men go crazy without them. We guard them so closely that if you dared kill the devil on earth, our courts would throw the book at you for it. They would throw it much harder if they thought you knew the devil was acting… if you knew that “2 Minutes Hate” was a con and a bluff.
Whatever the Haqqani are up to, it’s probably quite evil. But the world seems to need them just now, so badly that there is no hope of defeating the buggers.
“When Is a Soldier Not a Soldier?”
Ans: When he purposely, and with malice aforethought, TARGETS civilian non-combatants (such as Twin-Towers office workers). True soldiers occasionally kill civilians, but NEVER as a matter of intent. In the battle against Muslim jihadis, such collateral damage is more frequent, because the jihadi target routinely uses innocents as battlefield shields. For instance, Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Hizballah (etc.), purposely locate their missile launchers and munitions depots in heavily populated civilian sectors with the HOPE that any infidel enemies who come up against them will kill and maim Muslim non-combatants. That is, not only do these terrorists — who are NOT in any sense of the word “soldiers” — target the (unarmed, unsuspecting) civilians of their enemies, they also USE their own children, mothers, and old folks, as breastworks against their morally-restrained Western foes.
Unless the west finally hits the terrorists hard, we are condemning civilians on all sides to endless attacks. If we had the same rules of engagement in WWII, we would be still fighting the Nazis today. It’s time to stop buying oil from OPEC and let them kill each other in their own cesspool, instead of giving the savages a chance to kill us.
Robert Cooper’s essay (page 11) in “Re-ordering the world: The long-term implications of September 11th” available at (http://fpc.org.uk/publications/ReorderingWorldSep11) provides a framework for assessing this issue. States can be post-modern, modern or pre-modern with only the last two posing any external threat. The response to these threats, however, needs to be varied. As he comments:
“The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era – force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle. In the prolonged period of peace in Europe, there has been a temptation to neglect our defences, both physical and psychological. This represents one of the great dangers of the postmodern state.”
He points out, as some of the posts do here, that in some of the pre-modern states, the government is so weak it operates like an organized crime syndicate and concludes that dealing with it will require a post-modern imperialism that is “acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values.”
Well worth the read.