Category: Geopolitical Brouhaha

Active Duty ‘Conscientious Objectors’ On The Rise

Sh’yeah, right.

Many of the enlisted personnel who are now seeking honorable discharges argue they didn’t sign up to defend America; they just wanted to learn a trade or earn money for college.
Those seeking discharges based on conscientious objections to the current war on terrorism and military action in Afghanistan insist that military advertising failed to present the reality of military conflict, focusing instead on money for college, job training, leadership and disciplinary aspects of the military.

Yeah. And all those tanks, guns, jets, and grenades? Trendy fashion accessories!

[…] “There’s very little in military advertising that talks about combat, that talks about killing, that talks about fear, loneliness and all of that stuff. It’s not there,” said Titus Peachey, a director of peace education for the Mennonite Central Committee U.S.

Well, of course. And candy bar commercials don’t talk about getting fat. Doesn’t mean that folks should be let off the hook for the duh factor.

According to Peachey, potential recruits, many of whom are teenagers, “are at a very vulnerable age” when they meet with military recruiters that visit high school campuses.
He added that the teens are lured into military life by the “sharp uniforms” worn by recruiters and the “very attractive packages” offered by the military. “It seems logical that a high school kid would think about the possibility of fighting in a war,” during a time of hostilities, he said. But in peacetime, war is “the farthest thing from their minds.”

Let’s get things straight. Nobody joins the military because they want to sit in a muddy foxhole and be shot at. Because they want to see their buddies blown to bits. They join for the job, for the bennies, or, during times of conflict, to fight for their country. But nobody getting into the military, I suspect, really has any idea of what combat is like.

Tough noogies. That’s what swearing an oath means.

Or let’s put it another way. Folks at 17 and 18 can get married, too (I think the 17ers usually need parental consent, but …). A “very vulnerable age,” though. Folks might be lured into marriage at that age by the “very attractive packages” offered by their prospective mates. When madly in love/lust, the idea that it might not work out is “the farthest thing from their minds.”

Does that mean that 17- or 18-year-olds should be able to simply walk out on their spouses, without ramification? Regardless of what they want? Regardless of whether bambinos are involved?

Now, frankly, I think 17- and 18-year-olds are too young to join up. And I think they are too young to get married. And I think they are too young to make a lot of commitments. But we let them do quite a few of them do all sorts of commitments to which they have to live up. I really don’t think that they should be let off the hook any more than I would be. Assuming anyone would want my carcass in the military ….

(Link via Xcot)

The Top5 List rocks. Today’s list is based on news stories that Hollywood action writers are being solicited to brainstorm ideas of potential terrorist attack strategies, and how they could be foiled.

12> Those satellite recon photos add a good 10 pounds.

11> Make sure whatever post-Taliban coalition government you form includes Gwyneth or Julia, if you want it to open big.

10> First you let bin Laden tell you all the details of his evil plan, THEN you send a cruise missile up his ass.

9> Bin Laden’s base is most likely beneath a fake lake in a dormant volcano.

8> Recipe for success: Secretary of Defense who “plays by the book,” and Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff who “cuts corners, uses his street smarts, and gets the job done.”

7> Green Berets: good.
      Elite team of black-leather-clad ninja babes: better.

6> Beat bin Laden at Baccarat right in front of his scantily-clad escort.

5> Earth tones? Camouflage? Hello? That is *so* 1980’s!

4> Always reserve one seat on every plane for a disgruntled ex-cop with a bad attitude.

3> Do not appoint Robert Downey, Jr. for any wartime post that requires perfect attendance.

2> Whatever you do, don’t hold the after-war party at Spago — their calamari is like rubber bands!

MALONE: You wanna get Capone? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you sen done of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone.
        — The Untouchables, script by David Mamet

That’s how Peter David starts his 12 October Comics Buyer’s Guide “But I Digress” article that way.

Now I’ve waxed lyrical previously about how much I enjoy David’s writing, and how his column is one of the main reasons I read CBG. Since those columns are not available on-line, I’m going to quote substantially here. Want to read the rest? Pick up the mag.

… However, we [his 16-year-old daughter Gwen and he] found ourselves in a discussion about the fact that Bush, making short and unmemorable speeches, didn’t exactly inspire confidence. By the same token, I had to admit that I couldn’t say that Gore would have inspired gobs of confidence, either. I am relieved that Nader didn’t win; he would have looked like a deer in massive headlights, because there’s no way he would have intended to sign up for a gig like this. And I wondered, out loud, if there was a single living American woul could be in the office of the presidencey and inspire total conviction that justice was going to be served quickly and efficiently.
Without hesitation, Gwen said, “Mr. T.”
… Unfortunately, Mr. T hasn’t run for office. You know who did, though, who might have provided genuine entertainment value in our darkest hour? The wild Ross Perot. I could see him going on TV. “You give us bin Laden right now or we turn the whole country of Afghanistan into a parking lot! pakistan, too! Level the place, just ’cause we can! You don’t think we’ll do it? Heck, I’ll do it right now! See this? Here’s the football! Got all the launch codes! Ready to go! You Taliban people got 50 seconds to call me at 1-800-IAM-NUTS, or it’s good night, Irene! In fact … I don’t even think I’m gonna wait! Here it goes!”
… While various licensees and media folks are scrambling to eliminate any visual of the Twin Towers from the memory of man — while everyone is treating the image of the World Trade Center as if you’ll turn into a piller of salt if you gaze upon it … Ariel [his 10-year-old daughter] opined that there should be a postage stamp with the Twin Towers, to memorialize it. That seems a pretty good idea to me.
… There seem to be interesting schools of thought: the notion, for instance, that, because the United States has done “bad things” in other countries, somehow this barbaric act was a case of just desserts. Of birds coming home to roost. … In short, we had it coming.
Whatever America may have done or not done that was “bad” or “good,” it’s undeniable that America has done many helpful things for many countries. I don’t recall nations loudly declaring, at any moment in time (including now) that, because we’ve done so many good things for countries, we have all sorts of positive things “coming.” You know, America, you’ve forgiven billions of dollars in debts, so here’s a few billon dollars to cover that debt. Thanks again.
No, no. If our good deeds reslt in prosperity or a buoyant economy, then we’re considered fat and lazy and caught up in pointless pursuits of consumerism. But the bad stuff — that’s OK, that’s poetic justcie. Apparently all we deserve is death, destruction, and damnation.
… [Folks] wonder why Muslims are now being hounded and harassed in the United States. Easy explanation for that: Some people are idiots. Three weeks ago, anyone would have told you that the treatment of Japanese-Americans and stateside Japanese citizens during World War II was, and is, a national disgrace and a shame-filled chapter in our history. But because some people hear the name Santayana and think he’s a musician, they repeat history’s mistakes. There’s no excuse for it.
On the other hand, while we’re brushing up on The Big One, let us keep that in mind, when fielding suggestions that we should try to understand the terrorists’ point of view or that maybe we should explore the point behind their acts and reason and negotiate with them. Perhaps they envision heads of state meeting with Osama bin Laden and returning form his encampment holding a piece of paper high over their heads and proudly proclaiming that we now have peace in our time. Yeah. That’ll work.
Terrorists see negotiation as a sign of weakness. Period. If tomorrow we gave them everything they demanded — if we abandoned Israel, if we dissolved the United States, whatever — all they would do is mentally check off, “Americans can be pushed around” and the very next time they want something else, break out the blades, and say goodbye to your loved ones on your cell phone.
… Bin Laden has stated flatly that his goal is noting less than the end of the United States of America. And we’re supposed to wonder why he thinks that? Why bother — when the Chicago way seems a more appropriate reaction? In a world filled with terror, sometimes you have to choose your fears. If people prefer to live in more fear of terrorists than in what the United States might do to end such threats, I think that’s just pathetic.
Do I want to see innocent Muslims killed? Of course not. However, that is not a concern shared by the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers, annihilating plenty of Muslims who were working in the buildings.
People proclaim that, if we start a war over this (not continue a war already declared by others, mind you; we’re starting it, because, you know, we’re America and evil), then, in best comic book fashion, We’re No Better Than They Are. Bull. Yes, we are. Because terrorists strike from hiding. Because they know no laws, operate from the shadows, dare people to catch them without taking responsbility for their actions. If American troops come rolling in, they’re gonna know what country is coming for them, and who they’re fighting.

The Washington Post reviews the food being dropped on Afghanistan.

“Here is your Moist Towelette,” it says in English on the back. “It will clean and refresh your hands and face without soap and water. Self-dries in seconds, leaving skin smooth and soft.”

(Link via Blather)

Good commentary in the National Review on changes in the US approach to war — especially telling in the apparent shift from the Powell Doctrine, even though Mr. Powell is now our Secretary of State (and perhaps why he is not our Secretary of Defense).

If America is less afraid of body bags now, it may be because we have already sustained six thousand of them (or we would have sustained six thousand of them, if many of the victims of Al Qaeda had not been burned and crushed into nothingness). We may be witnessing the end of Vietnam Syndrome, and Somalia Syndrome, and Gulf War Syndrome: a war without syndromes, waged in our own defense. A just war that is not holy war, but wholly war.

(Link via InstaPundit)

I find it interesting as I read the Bloggerverse.

On the one side, the idealistic peaceniks, who want to “give peace a chance” (we had, until 9-11), who want us to stop bombing (“What should we use, harsh language?”), and to somehow get folks who have systematically oppressed their populace in the name of their reading on their faith, who have harbored and even provided a government/military post to someone who has bombed embassies and whose organization has essentially admitted to hijacking planes and running them into buildings, to see the error of their ways and join us in a big hand-holding ring of love, joy, and peace. War is clearly not an option, assuming it ever can be. Maybe trade embargoes? No, their people are starving, and we’ve seen the Evil of Embargoes in Iraq. Ah, so, yes, harsh language? No, we need to be understanding. If we simply bribe our ways into their hearts (sending them food, technology, whatever they want), give in to what they want, stop being so “provocative” and “bullying” and and “Western-centric” (even though they base their philosophy on Western, if not US, concepts of tolerance and civil liberties), not to mention stop being “racist” and “imperialistic” and “capitalistic” (even though it is that capitalist system that has provided the surfeit of food and technology that they would have us hand over), then there will indeed be pie in the sky, by and by, and we’ll all sing “Kumbaya” (oops, that’s Christianocentric) and live in peace and harmony.

Basically, the frustration and shame of every sin, shortcoming, and past offense of the US, pent up, has found a new target — US violence against Afghanistan.

Then, on the other side, there are the idealistic hawks who basically say, “Nuke ’em all, and let God sort ’em out.” Bomb them into the Stone Age. Kill every Arab (which Afghanis aren’t) and convert every Muslim (yeesh!). Root them out of Afghanistan, then move on to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and, ultimately, all the other — ah, I’ll pass on what sometimes borders on (or crosses over into) ethnic slurs. Do this, these folks say, enforce a Pax Americana by dint of arms and the ruthless will to use them whenever our interests are crossed, and we will be safe and happy and there will be pie in the sky, by and by. And, yeah, we’ll sing “Kumbaya,” too, because dammit we’re all good Christians, and we’ll live in peace and harmony.

Basically, the frustration and shame of every weakness, failure, and embarrassment of US foreign policy, pent up, has found a new target — the violence unleashed against the US on 9-11.

The latter list is shorter in my obvious condemnation of it merely because it is a less elaborate philosophy — one that dates back to cave folk bashing each other over the head in the middle of the night. The former is a more elaborate structure, but no less simplistic, ultimately, as it relies on wishful thinking as deluded as the latter philosophy. The former says everyone can be friends. The latter says every enemy can be defeated with a rock. Both are ultimately destructive, since both are based on unreality.

And here I sit in the middle. I do believe that armed intervention against bin Laden, Al Quaeda, and the Taliban is necessary. And there will be people hurt, not intentionally, but predictably, in that effort. I’m sure there were French, Belgian, and Dutch civilians who were killed during the Allied march on the Rhine in WWII. I’m sure there were slave laborers in the German factories we bombed. That’s a cost of war. That’s why it should be a last resort — but a resort, when necessary, that needs to be pursued to the end.

Can we wage this war unjustly, wrongly, in an evil fashion? Absolutely. But that is not, per se, the case for all wars. And sometimes you don’t have a choice between doing good, but only doing lesser evil to avoid a greater evil. Freedom cannot be always won by civil disobedience, or by sticking flowers in the rifle barrels of your enemies. Sometimes chains need to be broken, not simply held out for removal. Nor, conversely, can peace always be won by killing everyone who looks at you cross-eyed. Sometimes a kind word is better, more effective than a threat. Sometimes — even most of the time — making friends is better than taking aim at enemies.

The media res, folks. That’s where it’s at. It’s messy, because it has to deal with the real rather than the ideal. But that’s its strength, too — because it deals with the real rather than the ideal.

Because the ideal is what leads you to do things like send jets into buildings. Ideal is what leads you to stone women who seek higher education. Ideal is what lets you treat human lives as unimportant in the face of ideology.

Well, I suppose that’s an ideology, too, but at least it’s one I can live with.

And we have no idea what that means.

Desert Storm wasn’t a war. Because it didn’t strike home. There were few (American) casualties, and no privations. There was broad natinoal debate as to whether we ought to be doing anything (answer: of course we should have, idiots, though it was a shame that the Kuwaiti royal family is so unsatisfactory a group to “fight for”).

The last war before that — ignoring silly excursions to Grenada and Panama — was Viet Nam. And that was a war — we lost people — but it was also lacking any sort of national determination. It was also lacking any privations. Aside from those who lost friends, family, or loved ones, you’d never know back here in the states that we were fighting a war. It destroyed the Johnson Administration (and the budget) to try to provide both Guns and Butter, but we did it. Sorta.

But this. America’s “New War.” The “War on Terrorism.” It’s in our faces, America. It’s not just lobbing missiles and bombs at targets unable to defend themselves. There’s enough serious talk of ground war that I’m pretty sure it’s coming. But it’s not just troops, but here at home. Security restrictions. A major change in what’s worth debating up on Capitol Hill. Job losses. Industrial dislocation.

People are talking differently. They’re talking about war.

That’s scary, folks.

They’re not all bad guys, guys

A very prestigious group of Muslim clerics issue a fatwa condemning the 9-11 attacks, and allowing Muslims in the US to serve in the US military effort against their perpetrators.

(Link via Instapundit)

Welcome to America

A story everyone should read. A good story. A story of what it’s all about, brothers and sisters.

(And a pretty good site, too. Wow — two adds in one day.)

And on a related note, Ulro, Jr., on the jihad — the other one that folks aren’t expecting. I don’t know if it makes me feel as good — but it rings just as true.

The more things change …

Why, look: some of the folks we’re seeking as allies against our latest enemy have ulterior motives of their own that are not in our long-term best interests. I’m shocked, absolutely shocked.

You didn’t think I could go very many days without jabbering more on the topic, do you?

Randy forwarded me an e-mail with a short article by Richard Kidd, a West Point grad who, among other experiences in the region, was in 1998-99 Deputy Program Manager for the UN’s mine and UXO clean-up efforts in Afghanistan. A few extracts from his view of Afghanistan and the impending war there:

It is my assessment that most Afghans no longer support the Taliban. Indeed the Taliban have recently had a very difficult time getting recruits for their forces and have had to rely more and more on non-Afghans, either from Pushtun tribes in Pakistan or from OBL. OBL and the Taliban, absent any US action, were probably on their way to sharing the same fate that all other outsiders and outside doctrines have experienced in Afghanistan — defeat and dismemberment.
… The concept of having a place of “honor” and “respect” is of paramount importance and blood feuds between families and tribes can last for generations over a perceived or actual slight. That is one reason why there were 7 groups of Mujehdeen fighting the Russians. It is a very difficult task to form and keep united a large bunch of Afghans into a military formation.
During their history, the only events that have managed to form any semblance of unity among the Afghans, is the desire to fight foreign invaders. And in doing this, the Afghans have been fanatical. The Afghans’ greatest military strength is the ability to endure hardships that would, in all probability, kill most Americans and enervate the resolve of all but the most elite military units.
… OBL and others do not think the US has the will or the stomach for a fight. Indeed after the absolutely inane missile strikes of 1998, the overwhelming consensus was that we were cowards who would not risk one life in face-to-face combat. Rather than demonstrating our might and acting as a deterrent, that action and others of the not so recent past, have reinforced the perception that the US does not have any “will” and that we are morally and spiritually corrupt.
Our challenge is to play to the weaknesses of our enemy, notably their propensity for internal struggles, the distrust between the extremists/Arabs and the majority of Afghans, their limited ability to fight coordinated battles, and their lack of external support.
More importantly through is that we have to take steps not to play to their strengths, which would be to unite the entire population against us by increasing their suffering or killing innocents, to get bogged down trying to hold terrain, or to get into a battle of attrition chasing up and down mountain valleys.
First, I would give the Northern Alliance a big wad of cash so that they can buy off a chunk of the Taliban army before winter. Second, also with this cash, I would pay some guys to kill some of the Taliban leadership, making it look like an inside job to spread distrust and build on existing discord. Third I would support the Northern alliance with military assets, but not take it over or adopt so high a profile as to undermine its legitimacy in the eyes of most Afghans.
Fourth would be to give massive amounts of humanitarian aid and assistance to the Afghans in Pakistan in order to demonstrate our goodwill and to give these guys a reason to live rather than the choice between dying of starvation or dying fighting the “infidel.” Fifth, start a series of public works projects in areas of the country not under Taliban control (these are much more than the press reports) again to demonstrate goodwill and that improvements come with peace. Sixth, I would consider very carefully putting any female service members into Afghanistan proper — sorry to the females of our class but within that culture a man who allows a women to fight for him has zero respect, and we will need respect to gain the cooperation of Afghan allies.
I would hold off from doing anything too dramatic in the new term, keeping a low level of covert action and pressure up over the winter, allowing this pressure to force open the fissions around the Taliban that were already developing — expect that they will quickly turn on themselves and on OBL.
When we do “pick up” the pieces, I would make sure that we do so on the ground, “man to man.” While I would never want to advocate American causalities, it is essential that we communicate to OBL and all others watching that we can and will “engage and destroy the enemy in close combat.” As mentioned above, we should not try to gain or hold terrain, but Infantry operations against the enemy are essential. There can be no excuses after the defeat or lingering doubts in the minds of our enemies regarding American resolve and nothing, nothing will communicate this except for ground combat.
And once this is all over, unlike in 1989, the US must provide continued long-term economic assistance to rebuild the country.
… Our opponents will not abide by the Geneva conventions. There will be no prisoners unless there is a chance that they can be ransomed or made part of a local prisoner exchange. During the war with the Soviets, videotapes were made of communist prisoners having their throats slit. Indeed, there did exist a “trade” in prisoners so that souvenir videos could be made by outsiders to take home with them. …We can expect our soldiers to be treated the same way. Sometime during this war I expect that we will see videos of US prisoners having their heads cut off. Our enemies will do this not only to demonstrate their “strength” to their followers, but also to cause us to overreact, to seek wholesale revenge against civilian populations, and to turn this into the world-wide religious war that they desperately want. This will be a test of our will and of our character.
This will not be a pretty war; it will be a war of wills, of resolve and somewhat conversely of compassion and of a character. Towards our enemies, we must show a level of ruthlessness that has not been part of our military character for a long time. But to those who are not our enemies we must show a level of compassion probably unheard of during war. We should do this not for humanitarian reasons, even though there are many, but for shrewd military logic.

I don’t know if this guy is full of it or not, but this is probably one of the most plausible, believable, balanced synopses of what we face, and what we should do about it, that I’ve read.

I hope other people are reading it.

From the below-mentioned Victory Blog, a Sunday Times of London article with a very different view than what you might be hearing elsewhere (“elsewhere” including, occasionally, “here”):

So at the most basic level America is loathed simply because she’s on top. The world leader is always trashed simply for being the leader. The terms of the trashing are remarkably consistent. Nineteenth-century Germans, Lind points out, responded to Britain’s dominance by saying, in effect, “they may be rich but we have soul”. That is exactly what many Europeans and all anti-Americans are now saying: we’re for God or culture or whatever against mammon. This is inaccurate – America has more soul, culture and a lot more God than any of her critics – but it is the predictably banal rhetoric of envy.

Good stuff.

‘Why do they hate us?’

An interesting (and sobering) look at how a variety of people around the Muslim world perceive the United States and its actions.