The Weak In Rock

Good lord.  So much for my plan to write more this year.

So, what, you may ask, has awakened me from my blogging slumber?  Oh, nothing much.  Just a RAND Corporation report that repeats crap I’ve been saying since late 2001.  The report is the result of a research analysis into how terrorist groups have ceased to be historically between 1968 and the present.   Seems that terrorist organizations are slightly more likely to cease operations because they achieve victory than due to military force exerted against them.

I’ll let you mull that one over for a moment.

Done?

Yup, we’re more likely, statistically speaking, to lose the so-called war on terror than we are to win it.   Of course that’s not really the main point of the study.  The realy money-shot is that terrorist organizations are actually most often put on the shelf of history because of either a negotiated political settlement or policing and intelligence work.  Military efforts to combat terrorism only succeed about 7% of the time.

The British, by the way, figured this out right out the gate (granted, they’ve been dealing with guerilla wars and terrorists since, oh, about 1776, so they ought to have learned a little about it by now).  The US government still hasn’t got even a shadow of a clue on this subject.  That’s why I’m making a small effort to bring this report to your attention, gentle readers.  Anyone who supports a continuation of the so-called war on terror needs to be denied your vote this fall.  And I’m not just talking about McCain and Obama.  There are House and Senate seats up for grabs in November, and we need to put the boot in to anyone who thinks we’re spending our money and time wisely with this alleged war.

My favorite quote from the summary of the RAND report:

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists’ view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.

Emphasis mine.

Read the report and summary here.

Technorati Tags: RAND Corporation, terrorism

I’ve been saying for a long time that the British have had a much more enlightened conception of Al Qaeda than the US. Well, now it’s official.

“The words ‘war on terror’ will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country’s chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.

“Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless ‘death cult.’”

The story goes on to say, in reference to the most recent terrorist activity in the UK:

“’The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers,’ Macdonald said. ‘They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way.’”

Yup. That’s it. The folks who flew planes into the World Trade Center in NY on 9/11/01 were criminals, not soldiers. You cannot fight criminals with an army. You fight them with law enforcement - investigation, evidence gathering, arrests, prosecution and incarceration. And by calling these people what they are - fanatics, narcissists, murderers and criminals - you give them their proper status. By referring to them in any sort of context of warfare you elevate their importance in the world and dignify what they’re doing.

Maybe someone in the Democrats’ camp will pick this one up and run with it. We can only hope.

Technorati Tags: the British, Al Qaeda

I’m really not going to say very much right now.  While I’m excessively pleased that Al Gore has just won a Nobel Peace Prize, this also just rubs a very raw wound.

Congratulations, Mr. Gore.  I guess we’ll just have to live with the biggest political what if that any generation in American history has ever contemplated.  That is unless we can convince you that none of us really wants to vote for Hillary.

*sigh*

Technorati Tags: Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize, Hillary

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation, 1961

Technorati Tags: military-industrial complex, Dwight D. Eisenhower

So, a new film made by a German filmmaker, called Rendezvous With Death, claims that the JFK assassination was orchestrated by the Cuban secret service. Not the first time that’s been suggested.

What’s interesting about this version of the story is that the claims are allegedly supported by former members of the Cuban secret service who were in on the plot and are interviewed in the film. There’s also an interview with Alexander Haig (I’m still bummed that he wasn’t Deep Throat) in which he quotes Lyndon Johnson as saying that “we simply must not allow the American people to believe that Fidel Castro could have killed our President.”

Ok, let’s accept this version of events for a second. It works on a couple of levels. Most importantly it explains what currenly seems like an irrational level of annimosity that the US Government feels towards Cuba and Castro. We’ve made nice with China’s communist government. We’re trading with Vietnam and have normalized relations with them. And one would never know that we ever fought a brutal and bloody war all over the Pacific against the Japanese. Why not make nice with Cuba?

But if Cuba and Castro arranged the assassination of JFK, and high levels of the US Government have known it all along but were prevented from acting on it due to the need to play nice with the USSR then the hatred of Castro and Cuba starts to make a lot of sense. You can’t come clean to the public about this because if a dinky little third world nation can pull off an assassination of the President of the US then suddenly everyone would be aware that the emperor has been parading around naked all this time, not to mention the ways this would embolden other pesky third world nations who have axes to grind with the USA.

Still, I’m still personally fond of the Jim Garrison version of events where Cuba, the Mafia and Naval Intelligence are all involved, even if such a conspiracy would be impossible to keep under wraps in any significant way for this long. My own theory is that the mob did Kennedy in, as well as his little brother a few years later as revenge for the Kennedy brothers betraying them - Sam Giancana was, it would seem, largely responsible for JFK winning the 1960 election, and more than a little pissed off that once in office the Kennedy brothers focused a lot of energy and resources on tossing Giancana’s friends into prison.