 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Nobody's Fool | |
The first causality of war is normally the truth, but in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, this honor might be Simon Crean's. He has said that Australia's
actions are illegal, and that Australia has broken international law. Simon's problem (like most leftists) is an inability to
think ahead. Many leftist policies sound good until the longer term costs are
considered, and Simon suffers the same myopia. If Simon were to win the prime-ministership in the next election, Australia would have a prime
minister who, by his own admission, agrees that Australia has illegally invaded
another country. Australia would be liable for reparations and Australian
soldiers, having signed up for Australia's defense and sent to gulf without
given a choice, would be liable for prosecution as war criminals. Someone clearly pointed out this error today, and he has been repeating the
mantra, but with the repeated clarification "but the decision itself does
not expose Australian troops to legal action as a consequence." He thinks
that this will save his skin. Of course this is nonsense. The point is that he will have admitted the
actions were illegal, regardless of whether (in his opinion) action can be
taken or not. If you admit to a crime, you admit to a crime. How often you insist
'but I can't be prosecuted for it', is irrelevant. At the next election voters may be given the choice of voting for someone who
insists that Australia acted correctly, or someone who admits illegality, and
therefore leaves Australia (and Australians) vulnerable to international legal
actions (regardless of whether he insists that action can be taken or not). On the other hand, Australians may not be given that choice. The
powerbrokers in the ALP may
offer another prime-ministerial contender. Strictly speaking, shooting yourself in the foot can count you as a war
casualty, though self-inflicted injuries get you little sympathy.
|
|
 |
| Just like the real thing, only in Iraq | |
With George (six-gun) Bush's 48 hour ultimatum expiring midday tomorrow, Alex
('the things that batter') Downer predicting an immediate start of the war,
and the Soldiers of the Willing moving in convoys into the de-militarized zone,
Saddam's political career faces an unprecedented challenge. There's still a small chance that the military pressure will eject Saddam
from Iraq like a zit, but the cyst is looking a bit too robust for such a
simple solution. Iraq has to face the US military scalpel, and no anesthetic is
available. This operation - 'Iraqi Freedom' - is going to hurt. And since Saddam has formally rejected Bush's ultimatum, the US is
under no obligation to wait until the deadline. The money's down, the
'play' button has been pressed and the video-game is starting right now. The US Republicans were so disgusted with the French that they took French
Fries and French Toast off their menu, replacing them with Freedom Fries, and
Freedom Toast. Maybe Saddam should have changed the name of 'Russian Roulette'?
But it's too late now - this chamber is loaded, Saddam - and the trigger has
been pulled.
|
|
 |
| John Howard - fifth rate General | |
The same man who took away your guns and then led us to the brink of war - Johhny
(but-I've-got-guns-and-you-haven't) Howard - has just made an extraordinary
military decision. Australian troops are not to
fire at Iraqi troops in
civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals in the coming war. It's not clear how many Iraqi soldiers read Australian newspapers (or this
site), but any that do now know that if they are attacked by Australians, they
only need to shelter in a school or hospital, and the Australians cannot
return fire. Little Johhny has told us that we must not treat returning soldiers like
the 'Nam veterans, many of whom were spat on by protesters when they
returned. But apparently it is OK for him to put their lives at risk by
limiting their operational abilities. Former military personnel are not popular choices for politicians in Australia,
but at least they would understand the rules of combat necessary to achieve a
military objective. Maybe it's time to dress Little Johnny in khaki, give him a
gun and parachute and drop him over the Iraq desert. Then we could cut down on the number of body-bags sent to the gulf.
|
|
 |
| Libertaire, Egalitaire, Nausaire .. | |
Frogs are loud, slimy creatures which are hard to get a grip on, and shift
position quickly when frightened. Your ABC now reports that
recalcitrant French
President Jacques Chirac may be reconsidering his position on Iraq, and agree to a 30 day
deadline for weapons inspectors. That is - agree that the US could attack in 30 days. This
comes after the US have given strong indications that they have given up on UN negotiations, and
will just bypass the UN. Few things are as nauseating as a group of politicians acting in
their own selfish
interests while pretending they are acting for the common good. The French (socialist-leaning since
their bloody revolution
in the late 1700s) are champions at this game, and the French politicians are
the cream of the cream in an environment where slime floats to the top. Jacques' recent US-bashing tantrums in the UN have had their rewards. The
French President's popularity is at an all time high of 67%. Why? The French,
invaded and overcome by the Germans in both world wars after a pitiful resistance
hate to see real power and
strength. They identify quite strongly with terrorists - engaging in terrorism themselves against
New Zealand by murdering a Greenpeace member in their bombing of the Rainbow
Warrior in 1985. But while the US has culturally and economically moved ahead in leap-frogs and
bounds over the last few decades, the French puddle has stagnated after forcing 'cultural uniformity'
and 'lifestyle protection' on the people. Jacques' petulant strutting around the UN like the leader of a super-power
isn't going to last for long. France's veto power in the UN security council
won't exist if the structure collapses or undergoes 'significant review'. There
is no way that France would become one of five 'special' nations if a UN
style organization were formed in 2003, and Jacques knows it. Jacques has to decide between the short-term benefit (the boost to his
popularity) and the long-term cost (being remembered as the president who lost
France their veto power at the UN). The short-term euphoria is clearing, the
lily that Jacques is resting on is sinking, his feet are getting cold and he's
looking for somewhere else to jump - a way in which he can back-down and still
claim victory over the hated
and successful Americans. The US is saying 'jump!', and the Frogs are determined not be seen
asking 'how high?'
|
|
 |
| Lonely Road to Baghdad? | |
The moral majority has always played a big part of domestic politics in the US, but now,
moral majority politics has found its way into the international scene. Any UN proposal
for attacking Iraq seems
doomed to fail with France
and Russia saying they will veto it. But the US have still been frantically
trying to win support from other nations. The US could bribe the undecided
tin-pot African nations to
get a majority. The 'yes' votes are counted first in the UN security council,
and if 9 yes votes are counted, France and Russia have to actively veto it by
voting 'no' (abstentions are counted third). France and Russia would have to
veto a vote of the moral majority. So if 9 out 15 security council members vote in favor, what gives Russia
and France the right to undermine majority will? Why should Russia
(a democracy for only a decade and still struggling with the concept), and
France (only given permanent membership because of sympathy after being
defeated in both world wars) have veto power when others haven't? And what of the Australians and English who think that a war is only justified if the UN
votes for it? A majority of the UN security council will have voted for it!
What is so inherently good about France and Russia that the war would become
justified if they abstained instead of vetoing? The obvious hypocrisy of the permanent-member-veto system is set to undermine
the credibility of the UN, perhaps fatally. Recent reports suggest though, they may make take another route. The US can
interpret the existing resolution (1441) as justification for invasion, but a
failed proposal couldn't be interpreted that way. The US can take the new
resolution off the table, invade Iraq and bypass the UN. Or it can force a
veto, invade Iraq anyway, and effectively thumb its collective nose at the UN. So what is the real agenda of the US? How much good-will capital does the
US want to spend on destroying the UN? It ultimately depends on their domestic
pressures. George has popular support already, and just has to keep it up.
Tony and Johhny on the other hand are counting on post-war euphoria for
support. Success has many allies, and a quick and successful war will have the
majority of voters suddenly remembering that they were in favor of the war all
along. And what's the ultimate military objective? Discrediting the UN is just
really just a bonus. Ultimately, Johnny, Tony, and George are trying to avoid
regime changes at home.
|
|
 |
| The UNdead | |
The indignant squeals of negotiating, bargaining, jockeying, and bribery in
the UN are reaching a
crescendo in the lead-up to the big vote - in which everyone at the table will
(in George Dubya's best Texan cowboy drawl) show their cards. George
is determined to show the world that, in this high-stakes game, he's not
bluffing. The chips are down and it's time to read 'em and weep. Unfortunately for George, Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao
believe exactly the same thing. Could this possibly be a win-win? Well, it
could if they are playing different games. The US have re-deployed their military 'forward projection' capabilities
into projecting democracies around the
world, because they think this will decrease the terrorist threat. The
realization that this involves winning the peace as well as the war may take a little time, but at
least their efforts will be noticed. Killing people usually does that. And with respect to installing democracies, the UN is not really part of
that vision. A room full of dictators is a room full of
dictators - the fact that a majority of them may agree on something does not
make it democratic. The notion that a collection of tinpot dictatorships is a
sound basis for creating democracies would be laughable if people didn't take
it so seriously. The UN was set up as a treaty between governments - most of them
governments who repress and steal from their people. It
provides a means for dictators to legitimize themselves, and also allows politicians (unsated by
controlling the lives of their own populations) an opportunity to control the
lives of people in other countries. The UN has no charter for creating democracies. Its primary charter is:
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our
lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind
.. even if the peace involves repression, dispossession, rape, torture, and slavery (ie
even greater untold sorrow). So it doesn't matter whether the Iraqi invasion is vetoed this
week or not. If it is not vetoed, then the backdown in the face of US assertion demonstrates the UN
has no guts. If it is vetoed, the coming war will demonstrate the UN has no
authority. Either way it has no credibiity, and a very limited future. The institution which values peace above freedom, liberty and
basic human rights is dying. Could there be a more fitting obituary for the
UNdead than 'Rest in Peace'?
|
|
 |
| Waste not want not | |
Only the intellectually confused and the very misguided believe there is no
need for a powerful military deterrent. Most
people accept the need for a large (or at least significant) standing army
which is ready to deploy at the drop of a bomb and defend God, Queen, and
country - or at least the triple fronted brick veneer we like to call home, and
the 4WD baby killer we use to ferry the kids to receive their collective
programming by the feminists in the education department. But armies are like large companies: they have large fixed costs. Just as
a large company has to pay rent, wages, electricity and Microsoft software licenses
before they make a single widget, armies have to buy tanks, guns, bombs,
submarines, and pay salaries to their staff just to have soldiers running
around shouting 'bang' in training exercises and marching up and down the
square in straight lines yelling political slogans like 'left
.. left .. left'. And all before they've killed a single individual! Traditionally, governments have used the
economic surplus of their
populations to wage war on
other governments. A morally questionable tactic
perhaps, but one which led to larger kingdoms, and impressive economies of scale. In modern times, Western governments have
chosen instead to use most of the economic surplus to subsidize poverty - but not
all of it. Some of the surplus goes on paying for a large standing army to
ensure the security of their tax-base. But there is lots of lots of surplus just sitting there. Why have an entire
army sitting around doing bugger-all when there are people that need killing?
There are countries in turmoil, entire populations in need of rescuing from
dictatorships (and probably a few that need rescuing from themselves). The US employs over a
million people in their defense department. These are good Americans who need
to feel useful; to be wanted; to be loved. What better way than to
effect regime change in a few unpopular dictatorships? And remember - it's not force when it's for the common
good. Just ask any self-respecting leftie.
|
|
 |
| War Plans Half Baked | |
The new Islamic
government in Turkey was never going to be an easy political ally, but things
have cooled off with the US over the last few days, as the parliament voted
against allowing the passage of 62,000 US troops through Turkey for an
attack on Iraq. The US thought they had the Turkey in the bag, and that the deal was done.
Turkey was asking for some $US50B in aid and loan guarantees in exchange for
free passage, but the US baulked, and said the Turks would have to settle for a
mere $US7B in aid and free ride into Iraq to harass the local Kurds. The Turks, of course, don't like the Kurds. The Kurds (mostly in northern
Iraq, Western Iran and
southern Turkey) just missed out on getting their own state in the big (and
seemingly arbitrary) Colonial carve-up which created most of the Middle Eastern countries
last century. Going into northern Iraq would let the Turks quell uprisings
before they spread to the Kurdish population on their own soil. No such luck now - the Turkish parliament baulked at the US counter-offer - even
after officials gave approval 'in principle', and the deal is off: no free
passage; no aid; no harassing the Kurds. American M1A2 tanks are still on ships in the Mediterranean waiting to
unload. Unloading onto Turkey seems unlikely - now they will have to sail around
to Kuwait, because the entire military ground operation may have to be launched from
there. Of course with the US and UK ramping up the bombing on Iraq even before a
declaration of war, it may be well underway by the time the tanks get to
Kuwait. They might unload straight into newly captured Iraqi ports - or not at
all. As yet though, there are no reports of the US transport ships sailing off
through the Suez to unload at Kuwait. Clearly the US are still hoping for a
change of heart from the Turks, who have just witnessed the 12% drop of their
stock exchange as the reality of having to go cold-turkey on US aid hit home
for the debt-ridden nation. The thought of the US encouraging a future Iraqi
puppet government turning a blind eye to smuggling arms to Kurdish separatists
in Turkey as payback may be a little sobering too. Saddam has been confused by the maneuvering too. Earlier reports claimed that
Iraqi troops in the north of Iraq were moving south - strongly suggesting that
Saddam had conceded northern Iraq, and was moving his military back to Baghdad
to protect his regime. After this, they may be moving north again. This looks like a boring game of chess in which inexperienced players make
the same move over and over again, thinking that boredom will force their
opponent to break out of the loop. We'll be waiting until thanksgiving. Saddam's tried and true cheat-and-retreat strategies have never failed
him - yet. And Turkey too, may be given one more chance. The E.U. aspirant with
the dubious distinction of being the only country in the Middle-West may have
to decide which side of the line it falls on in the war of ideologies - and
soon. If it makes the wrong decision - Turkey is stuffed.
|
|
 |
| Shields down to 20% | |
Western peace-mongers who
went to Iraq to risk their
lives for the name of peace in the coming war have had a change of heart,
and 80% are on their way home. The 200 Human shields in Iraq were summoned to a meeting on Saturday. The
head of the Friendship, Peace and Solidarity organization, which is hosting the
Human Shields instructed them to choose between nine "strategic sites" by
Sunday or leave Iraq. Obviously these people expected that free choice played a
greater role in Iraqi life. Apparently they had expected to be able to shield
'humanitarian' sites like hospitals - ie the kind of sites that they know the
highly accurate US smart bombs will not target. Of course the peace-mongers claim that millions of innocent Iraqi babies
will die in a US attack - ie that the bombs will drop everywhere. If that were
the case, then hospitals wouldn't be any safer than oil refineries, power plants andx
water-purification sites But now, when instructed to shield strategic sites only, the
peace-mongers are fleeing for their lives. In fairness, there are other reasons why some of them may have decided to
return home. Many of them are apparently out of money (it seems that the dole
checks stop when you become a human shield), and expecting to do something
complex like counting their money before they go is unrealistic. The other reason that many Human Shields may have lost heart is the Iraqis
themselves. Even the most strident war opponent would agree there are some
Iraqis who want the war - who think they can gain from the regime change and
the lifting of sanctions. The booming Baghdad
property prices themselves are strong evidence of this. These people have
no love for the West,
or Westerners - especially the whining peace protesters who are slowing the war
momentum. It would be no surprise to see an overzealous Iraqi taking matters into his
own hands to re-lubricate the war machine, by slotting one of the Western human
shields. So for the peace-mongers, it's back to their safe Western nations - to
collect their pensions and their dole checks; back to their
guaranteed democratic rights, civil liberties and
police protection, so they can ready themselves for the next protest to
criticize the very system which provides them those protections. What better way to show contempt for dogs of war than biting the hand that
feeds them?
|
|
 |
| Masters of Diplomacy | |
China has criticized
suggestions of Australian
investment in the US Star-Wars-II style missile defense shield. Such a defense
shield is still just experimental, but is being carefully considered by the US government, and there are
suggestions that Australia could get a slice of the action - for a
price. Chinese officials said that such a move was unnecessary, provocative,
destabilizing, and would result in a regional arms race. Before thinking that only the inscrutable Chinese would label the installation
of bars on their neighbor's windows as 'provocative', it's worth studying the
big picture here. Star-Wars-I, rightly or wrongly, is frequently attributed with the collapse
of the Soviet Union. It
was the last big dollar item in the Cold War arms race which the Soviet military couldn't match,
before the collapse of the entire socialist empire. While the Chinese empire is a little more robust, it still suffers the
occasional tremor in the outlying regions. The more nations climb aboard the
missile defense shield, the more money will be spent on it, and
the higher its chances of succeeding. And if it works, Taiwan will get it. The Chinese hate Taiwan because it is a clear demonstration of the economic, ethical and military failure of their own
corrupt regime. A
missile-shielded Taiwan would also be more inclined to claim independence from
China - the mere suggestion of which sends Chinese officials into an indignant
rage. And even if the missile defense technology doesn't work, such projects tend
to have other technological spin-offs
which the Chinese will be locked out of, and realistically can't afford. China, with its huge population and fast growing economy, hopes to take over
from the US as having the world's largest economy (and by implication the
largest military) in two or three decades. Hardly surprising that they don't
want any 'destabilizing' technologies thrown into the soup. There are two make-or-break technologies which may shape the future of
warfare within two decades. One is the missile defense (shooting a bullet with
a bullet is a tricky thing to do), the other is software which can
intelligently handle UCAVs
(un-manned fighter jets). UCAVs can do 15G rolls and such-like because
they don't have to worry about squashing the human occupant who is likely to
pass out at around 8Gs. Hence they could in principle out-perform all current
fighter aircraft, and achieve air supremacy. A nation with a monopoly on these
technologies could rule the world in two decades, and the Chinese know it. However this is still all science fiction, and there may be a more useful
short-term strategy - getting the Chinese to squash North Korea. A quiet word
to the Chinese that North Korean aggression will make South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia all join the
missile defense program might concern China enough to denounce North Korea's
current belligerence. When the guns go silent in Iraq, that may be enough to cower
the attention-seeking Kim Jong Il. Then a cooler reactor core in Pyong Yang could cool tempers all around.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
