#1
DOD seeks but gets few volunteers for 5-year deployments to Afghanistan. The five year plan is a good one. Military history has shown that staffs that serve longer together, especially in a foreign land, are much more effective. There's no other way to get this advantage other than to be there, for a long time. All the service chiefs have promised to encourage their best people to step forward. But the way the military is set up, and the bureaucracy itself, is not hospitable to ideas like the Afghanistan Corps. In other news, the US has already been involved in Afghanistan 8 WHOLE YEARS.
#2
The problems are several. The big one is career enhancement. How will that five year assignment weigh on promotions and future assignments?
The track record is abysmally poor. It's the old late 19th century pattern of staying close to the flag pole [Washington] versus serving on the frontier posts. It's institutionalized by a personnel system still firmly entrenched in a peacetime mode that hasn't been altered for [again] eight years of war. It is further hampered by the legal caste who's effort is to make every act of mayhem on the battlefield a courts martial offense.
#3
You mean your big idea is to get people to stay away from their families for five years when the political class finds it a challenge to stay in Washington longer than six months at a time?
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/08/2010 5:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's likely true in the sense of overall economic activity. However, it is almost certainly to the detriment of existing citizen, particularly low skilled and low paid ones. It is also generally to the benefit of high paid workers, because the immigrants drive down wages in unskilled occupations.
#3
Well, it will certainly help the economies of those nations which intentionally dump their population, on the US, to avoid real reform and revolution. One just has to look at California and see the impact upon an economy and legal system that is being taken down by the weight of millions of unskilled and assimilated in a nanny welfare state.
#5
The Democrats are now planning a blanket amnesty and citizenship for all illegals, figuring it is the one way they can avoid an election blowout, nationwide giving them 8-10M more voters.
They are planning to start in on immigration as soon as Obamacare is passed, and right after the State of the Union address.
Don't laugh, the left did exactly that in the Netherlands and England and it worked. The Democrats have been in consultation with them as to how to bring in *more* aliens, not just Mexicans, as quickly as possible.
This is because Mexicans often vote for conservative Republicans, and they want immigrants who will reliably vote only Democrat.
#6
If the immigrants are legalized but not given citizenship, the consequences are drastically different depending on what you assume about:
- does biz still pay them less than min wages even though its illegal
- how well does biz do in collecting social security
- how will utilization of hospitals, etc. increase with more immigrants
- do legalized immigrants commit fewer crimes once they are legalized
Based on your assumptions, you can produce a study with a wide range of conclusions.
Posted by: lord garth ||
01/08/2010 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You think you can legalize the ones that are already here and prevent any more of them from coming? Seems to me we've heard that before. It didn't work then and there's no reason to believe it ever will.
They're turning the United States into a Third World country. We're gonna be as crowded as India or China. We're gonna be poor and polluted. We won't have adequate clean water. Infrastructure will crumble. Crime rates will skyrocket. Corruption will be worse than it already is. Housing will be rat and cockroach infected cracker boxes in multi-story slums. Call me a racist if you want. I'm not. But that's what's gonna happen. In Southern California it is already happening.
#8
Oh please! Cracker boxes are where the maids, handy men and delivery boys live. Real people live in Malibu and have $22,000 water bills.
Posted by: ed ||
01/08/2010 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
For $22,000 a month you could have your own private lake. Seriously, if she's living on a bluff over the ocean, she needs to be concerned about the effect all that water is having on the bluff. It'd be funny to see that mansion of hers sliding into the surf.
She might think she's safe in that little enclave of hers but when there are a billion people living in this country it's gonna be a whole other ballgame.
#3
Do people actually read these things before they publish them?
No. And the media wouldn't know the difference between an Army or Marine Private and a Navy First Class Petty Officer even if you explained it to them. Oxygen wasters, all of them.
President Obama was right when he declared after convening the post mortem on the Detroit debacle that "we have to do better." The simple fact is that $42 billion later, Americans do not feel much safer getting on an airplane than they did eight years ago. Despite the post- Sept. 11 upgrades in security, despite the long lines, the inconveniences of removing shoes and belts and coming soon to an airport near you - full body scans - we are not reassured that the next disaster is not lurking just around the corner. People are concerned we aren't doing enough to fight the enemy and we're still not sure we've fully identified the enemy.
The administration and its Republican critics are still arguing whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's Ft. Hood massacre constitutes an act of terrorism. That dispute is reflected in a larger debate of whether we are still in a "war against terror" and whether individuals like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be treated as enemy combatants or read their Miranda Rights as common criminals.
But however that debate shakes out, there is an important move, that would cost little but could strike a blow against extremism and make our skies a little safer: The president admitted that the current watch list is inadequate. But America needs to immediately expand its terrorist watch list. Consider this fact: While the United States has a database of 500,000 individuals implicated in criminal activity, only 1,700 of those names are on the terrorist watch list banning entry into the United States. Compare that to the watch list developed by the U.S. Justice Department of suspected Nazi war criminals. Developed in the 1980s, 40,000 individuals were initially listed, but later the list expanded beyond 70,000 when the Office of Special Investigations on Nazi War Crimes (OSI) included the entire roster of the Nazi SS - and all others who belonged to groups that abetted genocide.
Most of those aging genociders are in their 80s or 90s today and the hunt for Nazi war criminals will soon reach its biological solution. But not so Islamist terrorism - only in its genesis - which is the scourge of all humanity at the dawn of the new decade. It is inconceivable that in fighting the existential threat of terrorism, that we can be operating with a list of only 1,700 people to bar from entering the United States. To better protect the flying public and to strike a blow against extremists who today regularly indescriminantly slaughter fellow Muslims, the Department of Homeland Security should take a page from the Nazi watch list and immediately add those who openly support and abet terrorism. In practical terms, it means immediately listing the many thousands of names of all known members and enablers of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Indonesia's Jemmah Islamiyah and other terror groups listed by the State Department and the European Union.
And there are others who never fired a bullet, or strapped themselves to a ticking bomb, who nevertheless deserve to be publicly placed on America's terror watch list. They include Al Jazeera's Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, whose online fatwa insists that Palestinian women have the right to attain martyrdom by blowing themselves up amidst Israelis. There is Omar Bakri Muhammad, who once claimed to be a recruiter for al Qaeda and organized the "Magnificent 19" (Sept. 11 bombers) in London. Jordan's Dr. Ibrahim Zayd Al-Kilani, who said this: "killing a transgressing American soldier" is an obligation and a kind of jihad. There are the followers of Indonesia's notorious Abu Bakar Bashir, Jamaica's Abdullah el-Faisel, and Libyan-born Abu Yaha al- Libi, who defends the "legitimacy" of violent jihad as a "religious obligation." And of course, Yemen's favorite American Anwar al-Awlaki who served as spiritual mentor and validator to Ft. Hood's Maj. Hasan and the Northwest Airlines terrorist.
We have no doubts that a simple e-mail to all U.S. embassies by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would flush out many more terror enablers. To be sure, errors will be made and anyone who stands accused of such activity must be given recourse to clear their names. It may also be true that not everyone who belongs to a terrorist group will become a suicide bomber, but let them suffer the consequences - why should Americans have to take that risk?
By compiling a true terror watch list, the United States and allies will reassure the shaken flying public that no one committed to terrorism against innocent civilians is aboard their flight. Such a policy will also help strengthen the hand of moderates across the Arab and Muslim world struggling against these extremists. And by providing the guardians of our borders with accurate and timely information about all those who promote and deploy terrorism against our nation, we can help co-opt the need to turn to blanket racial and ethnic profiling.
#1
Distillation: the Department of Homeland Security should immediately add those who openly support and abet terrorism to its terrorist watch list But that's not PC.
#2
The problem is that almost all of the terrorists and terrorist enablers are Muslim. If all of the people on the list were Muslim, that would look like religious discrimination (against a favored religion).
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/08/2010 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And just barely, still expect a match score to flash during pauses.
The good news is that when on vacation to where he considers his second home (Hawaii, not Illinois mind you) the 03:00 phone call comes in at 23:00 so its really not that late a'tall.
Our national anger, of which we have an unusually large store, should be directed at clearer targets. Before working ourselves into a lather of excitement, which we do all too readily given the slightest provocation, we should be clear in our minds what we are getting angry about.
What did Indian army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor really say that has us so upset? His reported remarks were that India was modifying its military doctrine to include the possibility of a two-front war -- that is, against China and Pakistan. What's wrong with this?
From India's point of view -- and Gen Kapoor, after all, heads the Indian not the Pakistan army -- the possible threat India faces is from China and Pakistan, not the Maldives or Burma. Just as the possible threat we face is from India, not Uzbekistan or Sri Lanka.
If an Indian army chief were not to envisage the possibility of a two-front war, and mull over the means of waging it, he would deserve to be sacked. Just as Gen Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani would be shirking his responsibility if under his watch the Mily Ops Directorate were to ignore the possibility of the Pakistan army being engaged simultaneously on both the eastern and western fronts.
Military planning is not about certainties -- for potential threats by definition lurk in the realm of the uncertain -- but contingencies, about situations that could arise. And one not forearmed, to state the obvious, is foredoomed. Whether India attacks us or not is beside the point. Given our history, and our history of distrust, it's only common sense, not strategic brilliance, to be prepared for the possibility, near or remote as it may be.
It was the Times of India which first reported Gen Kapoor as saying, "The plan now is to launch self-contained and highly mobile 'battle groups adequately backed by air cover and artillery fire assaults for rapid thrusts into enemy territory within 96 hours." General Heinz Guderian would have approved. This reads like something out of a Wehrmacht blitzkrieg manual.
And it would be highly surprisingly, and the highest dereliction of duty, if General Headquarters in Rawalpindi were similarly not programmed to take the fight into Indian territory, should hostilities break out, not just in 96 hours but perhaps a bit sooner.
This may be like trying to seize the stars or clutch at the moon but if our war planning is worth anything our sights should be on our mechanised columns, backed by the full might of the air force, to be across the border in fairly quick order should war break out. Armies plan for victory, and rapid victory at that, not attrition or picnic parties.
In any Indo-Pak conflict -- may there never be one again -- we will be the David, or should be the David, to India's Goliath. If we are to prevail -- although I hasten to repeat that may things never come to this pass -- David's path should be ours, boldness and decisiveness our weapons. This is the only way to counter a bigger enemy.
We live in a dangerous environment. Thanks to Afghanistan and the American presence there, and the assorted engines of terrorism brought into being by previous fixations and earlier follies, our region counts as one of the most dangerous flashpoints on the planet. So the luxury of taking anything for granted is not ours. But even as we go arming ourselves against the worst, the least we owe ourselves is to read the minds and words of our adversaries correctly.
After so many years of independent existence we should be able to see things dispassionately. Gen Kapoor was not flaming the fans of war. He was not indulging in war-mongering, which would be silly in the present circumstances. He was carrying out a risk-assessment of the threat that India, to his mind, faces. Yes, he has spoken of better coordination (better synergy, in his words) between the three Indian services. What's wrong with that? Our services could do with better synergy. He has spoken of enhancing India's strategic reach into the Indian Ocean. Had our economy been in better shape, and if we not shown such a talent for making a mess at home, we would have been talking of spreading our reach into the Persian Gulf and beyond. And no one would have blamed us. Now what we have is a nuke capability in jarring contrast to our iron begging bowl.
China is attaining superpower status because of its growing economic might. It became a nuclear power in 1964 but is emerging as a giant on the world stage only now. As India's economy grows so will its great-power ambitions. The answer to this is not to sulk or go red in the face but, to the exclusion of other things, concentrate on our economy. Balancing our accounts is our number one problem, greater even than the threat from the Taliban. If our economic base remains brittle and our begging bowl is the only thing that helps us survive, no amount of military muscle will do us any good or make us look strong.
Gen Kapoor is also being berated in the Pakistani media for having said in November last year, "The possibility of a limited war under a nuclear overhang is still very much a possibility at least in the Indian sub-continent." There is nothing inaccurate about this, else why would we have such a large standing army? If there was no threat of a conventional war with India we would be well advised to disband half our forces and send them home. Sadly, the nuclear overhang has not made the threat of conventional war go away. Wisdom in any full measure has yet to dawn on the subcontinent.
Let's not forget, Kargil was not a full-fledged war engaging the bulk of the armies on both sides. But it was a serious conflict nonetheless which had every potential of getting out of hand, had not President Clinton eventually, at our urgent insistence, helped pull our chestnuts out of the fire.
For the foreseeable future we are doomed to have a touchy relationship with India, unless through vision and statesmanship, of which there are no early signs around the corner, we are able to transcend the dictates of geography and history.
But sixty years on the world stage is a long time to be around, at least enough to leave the apprenticeship of nationhood behind. As part of this growing-up it is high time we learnt to react with calmness to things coming from across the border, even if they happen to be blustery and provocative.
If we cast our minds back to the summer of 1998, India's nuclear tests were followed by some very provocative statements on the part of L K Advani and the like. As a result of those statements, our national morale was said to have been badly affected. Our response eventually, I am sure, was calibrated to the tests and not the statements. But the way this entire situation was played out in the media it almost seemed as if Pakistan was responding to the statements.
Gen Kapoor's two-front war assessment has been read in Pakistan almost as a declaration of war, and everyone responding to it has done so with a mixture of anger and heightened alarm. From Gen Kayani has come this warning: "Proponents of conventional application of military forces, in a nuclear overhang, are charting an adventurous path, the consequences of which could be both unintended and uncontrollable." The foreign minister has been livid as has been the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Tariq Majeed.
Has all this wordiness been necessary? Are we such an insecure nation that a single misinterpreted statement can so unsettle us? If a riposte was necessary, a one-liner from the Inter-Services Public Relations would have served the purpose. Something like, "Everyone is entitled to his fantasies", delivered with an ironic curl of the lips.
Philip, Alexander's father, sent Sparta a message: "If I enter Laconia, you shall be exterminated." He received just one word in answer: "If". When French marshals turned their backs on him in Paris, Wellington merely said, "I have seen their backs before." The cultivation of calm and brevity would improve our tone as a nation.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/08/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
President Obama was right when he declared after convening the post mortem on the Detroit debacle that "we have to do better." The simple fact is that $42 billion later, Americans do not feel much safer getting on an airplane than they did eight years ago. Despite the post- Sept. 11 upgrades in security, despite the long lines, the inconveniences of removing shoes and belts and coming soon to an airport near you - full body scans - we are not reassured that the next disaster is not lurking just around the corner. People are concerned we aren't doing enough to fight the enemy and we're still not sure we've fully identified the enemy. 
