Sake White

They are comments I wrote on other people’s blogs concerning interesting subjects, sometimes connected together in one theme.

1. ymarsakar, on October 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 am Said:

   Only a policy based upon some kind of Imperialism will ever get the United States a quid pro quo system. Although Mercantilism, which China practices, also returns any security/economic investment. The US does not engage in imperialism or mercantilism however.

   An example of imperialism is the British recruitment of the Gurkhas in Nepal. The Gurkhas got economic benefits and the ability to live their life as honorable warriors, fighting in the Regiments. THe British got cadres of strong and fearsome recruits. In fact, the regiments Britain used in the War of 1812 had soldiers picked from across the British Empire.

   American destiny flow is inwards flowing rather than outwards expansionary. By that I mean people come to the US, become citizens, join the military, and then the military is sent out as a systematic and unified whole. Outwards expansionary would be sending the military, occupying the zone, and then recruiting locals from the zone to send to the military, and finally you repeat the cycle. You can easily replace “recruits” with other useful resources, such as tea, spice, etc. Theoretically the US cycle is supposed to be smooth and unified, but in the past it was given that blacks were segregated and banned from the Marine Corps in WWII. War, however, provides the lubricants for inter-racial, inter-cultural, and inter-national understanding and peace. War done well, provides the relationship and deal between Japan and America, for example.

   War is not just about who has the greater numbers and the greater hammer, as the Left thinks with their regressive aristocratic world view (that equates numbers with power, because votes are power).

   THe US expects gratitude because any parent would expect such a minimum standard. However, not every child of every parent feels gratitude or even any loyalty to their parent. Expectation is not enough.

   However, the socialism model or call it the “social security” model, since SS essentially models the global trends in existence, is not enough to sustain alliances of mutual interest. Meaning, America will always be alone in the socialist model of military security because socialism is not about bringing people up to your standard, rather socialism is about keeping people in a certain slot… for their own protection. It can be either true, in the case of the US global dynamic, or false as the case for the Democrat party in the US in how they treat blacks, whites, etc.

   The topic of the SS is a good visualization because essentially the US pays for the protection of Europe in the hopes that sometime in the future, a future generation of Europeans will repay America with… something. That model doesn’t work in economics dealing with humans, why would it work with security issues that deal with Europeans?

   True alliances are made upon mutual interest because both parties have something to benefit from in the NOW from each other, not some umteen generation into the future as with the SS model. Self-interest is what motivates people, dontcha know. Something the Founding Fathers took into effect and thus created a working system, that worked for longer than socialism or communism combined.

   Bookworm, on September 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm Said:
   I declared a hiatus on insulting the French once they elected Sarkozy, and his recent pronouncements about Iran keep me quiet. Nevertheless, it is a historic fact that in 1870-71, 1914-1918 and 1939/1945, despite enormous numbers of individual acts of bravery by French men and women (especially in WWII), the French did not acquit themselves well when the Germans came to war.
   

   Did you know Book, that some Canadian I debated with across the internet, was trying to claim that Petain and the French couldn’t hold back the Germans in WWII and thus surrendered with honor?

2. 13 ymarsakarRobin, you are a heroine for keeping up with the Haditha story. They’re trying the same thing on Blackwater now.

   There were two similar scenarios that looked too close for statistical coincidence. One was Haditha, which you mentioned, and the other one was the first Marine Force Recon unit to be sent to Afghanistan as part of SOCOM. All three were accused of “death blossom”ing local civilians. Two were Marine units and another was former SF Blackwater civilian security contractors.

   These types of incidents usually happen with green, inexperienced, or undisciplined units. The Marines by that time in Iraq and Afghanistan, could not be said to be either green, inexperienced, or undisciplined. The military correlational factors I used for predicting such scenarios just didn’t meld with the stated narrative story.

   In the case of Afghanistan, Karzai was on our side yet the operation was still effective enough to equivalently neutralize a Marine Force Recon unit from the field. What could not be done by ambush tactics, IEDs, human shields, or Pakistani fighters was done by political/media maneuvering. Cleverness and the ability to exploit the enemy’s gaps in their armour counted in higher total efficacy than sheer brute strength attacks.

   Dan Rather is a good example of this happening totally based upon media incompetence. Dan Rather blew open his own armor. No amount of public criticism or even administration criticism (that could have feasibly been created) could dampen his 60 Minutes propaganda apparatus or the harm it did to the US. Yet, one clever stroke of the pen or the copy and paste machine and he was effectively neutralized. An organized attack might have even crippled 60 Minutes itself as a credible program.

   So the tactic is sound. By using Haditha esque techniques to purposefully organize those kinds of operations, you can remove entire military units from the board or otherwise hamper their operational ROE freedoms. At the least you can pull entire squads and individuals through the legal system to increase the psychological damage upon the military and civilian sphere of the US forces without having to mount any aggressive active force attacks afterwards.

   Without knowing the players in the game, their motivations, and how much part they play in such incidents, it is hard to counter them. However, we do know what tools are necessary for the success of such things. One, you need a guillible legal system that would rather throw one of their soldiers under the bus than to rigorously follow the justice/advocacy system centered around two advocates (lawyers). Instead of one lawyer against another lawyer, we have the entire army/military against one defendant’s lawyer. Without the military being able to investigate and being willing to throw their own under the bus to avoid embarassment/political fallout, such enemy psychological operations would be far less effective. Second, there has to be a political plan that could conceivably put pressure on the military. Domestic propaganda clips showing Haditha massacre and Murtha’s divine proclamations help grease the wheels and place the necessary assets into the right place and time.

   Number 1 is a military and Presidential internal matter. We have little chance of affecting such inner circle decisions. Bush and Rumsfield both would not interfere in investigations, therefore allowing people like Scott Fitzgerald and other investigators, military or civilian, to run wild or to run simply under the guidance of inimical forces. Call it misguided if you wish. Number 2, however, is far more vulnerable to sabotage and destruction. Since domestic propaganda is spread by politicians and media personas. Such people are vulnerable to disinformation, traps, and embarassment much as what happened to Rather. Embarassing politicians is something very popular right now, especially amongst the blogs, either side. Yet the decency of people such as blackfive almost guarantees that new Murthas will arise and be given respect until it is proven that they don’t deserve it. While the other side will try to personally destroy any hint of a strong oppositional figure such as Matt Sanchez.

   The way I see things, we are limited much as what Bush is limited by. Our own conscience and respect for the Constitution or strangers we don’t know. Pre-emptive strike requires that you select a target that may be the right one and strike at it in the hopes that sometime in the future, the unknown will become a positive known. Yet there are people like Murtha and Dan Rather and Mapes and Eason Jordan and a whole slew of folks that are not decent and should receive any restraint on the part of decent folks. That is what Bush differs on, since Bush believes that even indecent folks should be treated with decency and honor. That those without honor should be treated with the utmost of honor and that those with the utmost of honor should be treated to Lawyering cause the President is bound by his conscience not to interfere. The game is rigged in some respects.

   Since we can’t choose when or where we enter the game, it often does seem rigged.

   My favorite counter to the media is to provide them with disinformation. Give them what they want. Fabricate atrocities and then have the “dead people” testify that Americans are guilible. We cannot equal enemy propaganda if we avoid all the common tricks in the grab bag. Yet the most effective operations require organization, preferably Presidential organization, but that’s a wish that just isn’t going to come true in the next couple of years.

   Thank you for your appreciative words, suek. I often write about Japanese culture probably because of all the anime I watch. Besides, it was a nice beginning help on learning about Islam. Japan’s template in WWII in connection with American honor helped me improve my models from which I use to figure out connections.

   Most of the time I don’t come up with original analysis so much as I tie in what people are already saying. The few original analysis I did based upon scenarios I never saw before, was the Southern Border Scenario. Link

   The gang problem in LA, the border problem down south, the illegal immigration problem, and the drug problem are all weaknesses in our armour. Combined together and something can be done to create a mortal wound for America. Right now our enemies are too busy doing their own thing in the Middle East and Europe. Which is a good thing, for the damage they can do there is far less than what they can do here once they realize what can be exploited. Jimbo also wrote, from blackfive, about the basic inherent vulnerabilities in a free society such as ours. Schools, trains, buses, etc.

   That’s why I often read and comment, since it allows me to see what people are talking about and perhaps see some connections between otherwise unrelated situations.

3. The NYT, for example should have been prosecuted for publishing Secret information. They were not – why? Because the courts probably wouldn’t enforce it-suek

   Look to the Left, such as Fitzgerald, to show the way. He may not have been able to charge the reporter but he did jail her. It’s hard to get a grasp of the personalities involved simply from the news reports, but we do know now that Fitzgerald was an inquisitor via Leftist connections and so would use Leftist harassment tactics as far as he was able to. He was not the President however, so he could only hold people for so long in jail. The President, as you might recall with Lincoln, can put a lot of people in jail indefinitely. If the courts won’t enforce current policy and tradition, then the Executive Branch has to otherwise why even have an Executive Branch?

4. 19 suek>>If the courts won’t enforce current policy and tradition, then the Executive Branch has to otherwise why even have an Executive Branch?>>

   Indeed. But then, if challenged by members of Congress, it goes back into the courts. Between the two of them, it’s apparent that their goal is to bring the Executive Branch to heel. They want a well-trained puppy. Congress in particular.
   I’m waiting to see what’s going to happen on Fitzgerald – Justice should be pushing on the illegal appointment/no accountability. Will they? probably not, but we’ll see. I don’t think that Gonzales had the aggressiveness needed – we’ll see if the new AG does – if there’s enough time left. I don’t really expect it…but it’s an interesting facet.

   on 03 Oct 2007 at 5:00 pm20 ymarsakar

   Congress with the Judiciary should have enough power to constrain, in part, the Executive Branch. That is part of the stabilization system of 3 branches.

   However, there are many ways the Executive Branch can avoid or ignore Supreme Court rulings. Remember Andrew Jackson in which he ignored a Supreme Court order concerning the Cherokee and other Ameri Indians in Georgia? Andrew Jackson could not enforce the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Cherokees to stay, because that would mean federal protection from the Georgian settlers and militias who would attack the Ameri Indians and wipe them out without federal DC units. Jackson didn’t have the political power to tell the people that elected him to piss off and he didn’t have the military power to cover that much territory. So Jackson not only ignored the Supreme Court rulings, but he made his own policy, an Executive Order (or just like one).

   Both Congress and the Justices rely upon the Executive Branch to enforce the laws that Congress writes and upholds the rulings that the Justices decide. Without the military, police, and legal power backing the Executive Branch, Congress and the Supreme Court justices couldn’t do jack. Congress couldn’t collect taxes because the police and IRS would be ordered NOT to collect them. And if Congress or judges threatened arrest, the President returns with martial law and unlimited pardons. The tools and scenarios are there, even though the system has been stable enough to only warrant some singular uses of such power at a time, rather than all of such at one time and place.