Archive for July 2006

Republicans and motivations – War and Victory

July 30, 2006

Ymars: re: “Republicans have often times desired, like mama, to limit the violence.”

Actually, I don’t think limiting violence is possible. I was only pointing out that the ability to stop is an individual ability and responsibility, rendering the “victim” mentality inherent in the hunt for the “root cause” a red herring… and a damned dangerous one at that.

The reason I don’t think limiting violence is possible is because too many people simply will not take responsibility for their own actions. They’re always going to point a finger of blame to a “root cause”. With willing accomplices in the MSM who took Psych 101 in college ever on the lookout for “victims”, they are too often allowed to get away with shirking their personal responsibility for their actions.

Mama replies to to a comment of mine about conservatives/Republicans wanting to limit violence. Here’s the clarfification to what I mean. The title link goes to bookworm’s comments section where it happened. Grim’s post should clarify things a bit on what I was thinking when I wrote what I wrote.

Here’s what I wrote in reply to her.

I don’t mean it in the sense of direct limitations. Grim speaks better about what I mean than I can. Many Republicans I see, hear, speak to, and converse with act like Grim. They seem to have the same desires, motivations, and justifications as Grim does, here in this thing he wrote on bf.

I also didn’t write what I wrote, because I was thinking of what you, mama, said about root causes.

update some links talking about the same subject, but from the other side.

Some bakground info on Lebanon.


Prisoners of War – Does Torture work?

July 30, 2006

Yes, torture works. There are various classifications and technique levels, but the communist re-education and brainwashing camps were probably the highest of the high.

It is obvious that the Code of Conduct, in its current form, is not enough to protect U.S. prisoners of war from an enemy who has become more sophisticated in its abilities to exploit prisoners. After prisoners have resisted “to the utmost” of his or her ability, then what do they do? The Code does not answer that question.

Don’t get taken alive. Make them kill you. That should be a soldier’s prime duty, to never be taken alive as a prisoner by any enemy of the United States.

We all know what’s going to happen, we’ve known it for decades. People just are too weak and dumb to do much of anything to change policy.

The President should also find anyone involved in the capture and torture of our enemies, and execute them through short impalement on wooden stakes. That is of course, if he is truly serious about protecting our soldiers and doing everything he can to fight terrorism.

This is a link you should read, because it has a nice background info on Islamic Jihad and their culture. I’ve known about the sexual frustration of the Islamic world a few months ago when I read a couple of articles describing what goes on in the back doors when Islamic men don’t think anyone is looking into their houses.

Fundamental truths – Deductive Logic

July 29, 2006

The reason why I don’t use inductive logic (at least in this thread) is because inductive logic relies upon examples and historical precedents, that can be and often are argued for years on end without progress.

The solution I presented is to use deductive logic, rather than to rely on your inductive logic and get into useless arguments.

Of course you don’t accept the fundamental truths of the situation. If you did, your experimental data would reflect the methodology of your judgement.

The best I can do in any debate is to offer what I have for my position, contrast it with my opponent’s position, you, and have the reader decide for himself. Not everyone will be convinced by me, and not everyone will be convinced by you. But it all depends upon whether they come about their judgements and beliefs through deductive logic, which is the arguing of fundamental truths, or through experimental results, which is a scientific method of analyzing humans and politics through the news and events independent of the fundamentals.

The best way I can explain fundamental truths to you or Bookworm, is to mention Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Now, that principle is a fundamental truth. It is true because it applies to everything. A fundamental truth is FALSE if it does not apply to everything. So if I say a fundamental truth of Bookworm is that she is bloodthirsty (as many anti-neocons accused neo neocon of) then the proof in the pudding is that Bookworm often disagrees with me when I take a position that is real bloodthirsty.

Inductive logic is to go around looking at this situation, event, person, and action and trying to see how it acts and what not. Then when you have the data, you derive your conclusions from that. Deductive logic starts with the conclusion first, then with the data. Science never starts with the conclusion first and then tries to get the data, bad science results. However, to derive truth does not require science, there are other methods and techniques.

Bookworm mentioned in a later post that she has fundamental beliefs, about the truth, that informs her judgement. Bookworm has included human behavior and beliefs with deductive and inductive logic, one step further than I have taken in this thread.

A simple test of Bookworm’s inductive logic skills would be to see whether she can gather enough information and make a hypothesis that is backed up by the data she has collected. For example, with the drug test on tour de France, she has the data, and she has two mutually exclusive hypotheses. Instead of choosing one and trying to disprove it, she can, by using inductive logic, collect data and information in order to see which hypothesis is better supported by the evidence and the reasoning. Logically, only one option is true in a mutually exclusive situation. So one option is most of the time better supported by the data, Bookworm just has to find out which is which by digging up information she currently may not have.

Now an example of testing deductive logic, works the other way around. For example, I would say “If Bush is a liar, then what else would be true based upon that a priori?” From then on, I would construct a logical series of events and scenarios that MUST BE TRUE if the a priori belief, Bush is a liar, is true. Using this logic gate operation and code, I can create sub-logic routines that can be tested for truth or falseness. A couple of the subroutines says, then, if Bush is a liar, then he would have a propaganda apparatus. If Bush is a liar, he would have better popular support, ala Roosevelt and the other liars in the past who were very good at manipulating public opinion with deception. If Bush is a liar, then he would have excellent rhetorical abilities and his plans would contain extremely complex and deceptive details.

After I analyzed the subroutines, I came up with negatives on all of them. Deductive logic cannot and should not be used by idiots. Sherlock Homes, detectives, these people operate the way they do because of a reason, and also because they have ability. A guy who lacks the knowledge and the mental fortitude to make calculations, is unable to build and test logic gates. Neither can he debug them. Sure, maybe he could do it on paper, but in reality? With human beings as the logic gates? *shakes head*

The reason why deductive logic is so useful to human affairs, is because of how we think and how we believe. Everyone, you included bookworm, has something they believe in. So how can you make a scientific analysis of the thesis, if you already believe in one over the other? How is objectivity possible? It is not. People with prejudices, previous bad judgements, and so forth, cannot correct them if they cannot see why they were wrong. And without an inbuilt ability at introspective deductive logic, they are unable to see where they went wrong. If this, then that, if that then this, if this then not that, if not that, then not this. What kind of mental training, education, natural intellect, and good judgement is required for someone, like you bookworm, to analyze your own personal preconceptions and prejudices and verify whether they are correct or incorrect? Every human believes something. If we were all computers, then inductive logic would be all we would need in order to determine the truth or falseness of A or B. But we are not computers, we cannot analyse something without inbuilt bias. Therefore by taking into account our internal biases, we can build and debug logic gates based upon what should be true. If this, then that should be true. If not this, then that should not be true.

In Conclusion, I do not believe Clint understands deductive logic as a practical application while I think Bookworm does. It is a requirement for a person to change his mind. I cannot change Clint’s mind. I can only show by contrast how his thinking compares to mine. The reason why I won’t argue with you clint about the history of the Jews or tell you what I believe the Jews did or did not do to justify their state’s existence, is because I am far more interested in your fundamental logic and your a priori assumptions. With that information, I can build a logic gate. With that information, I need not go looking for historical contexts trying to “disprove” your position.

It’s a time saver. If Logic Gate 5 out of 5 X 10 to the 90 power logic gates is not true, then you discard the other 5 X10 to the 90th power logic conclusions. When debating, people draw up a list of ‘evidence’ and ‘stuff’ that can go down to the floor. Or at least take a supercomputer days to run through. It’ll never end, one side can always bring something else to the picture and say “here, this counters your A.” Which is returned by “this counters your counter to A” and on it goes until infinity.

Bookworm knows what I’m talking about because she’s a lawyer, one of their purposes being to make a legal list and make sure it contains everything advantageous to proposition A. Reasonable doubt, is there for a reason. Rest your case sometime. But there is always some new evidence that can be found sooner or later.

I rest my case on the basis that Clint doesn’t accept the fundamental nature of a democracy as being in favor of peace and the fundamental nature of terroists as requiring force to sustain their justification for existence. That is all that I need to know, and all that you need to know as well, fellow reader.

Pallywood – A video of proper propaganda

July 28, 2006

This is a nice 18 minute video documenting the fabrication and media manipulation techniques of the Palestinians and their terroist enablers.

Saw it first on mypetjawa.

Bush begging Congress for tribunals

July 28, 2006

You people ever hear of a fait accompli? It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission?

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval. What Lincoln did was present Congress with something he has already accomplished, and then Congress approved it. Constitutional, and effective. Bush’s policy? Diastrous and beneficial to the enemies of the United States.

Ralph Peters – So close yet so far away

July 28, 2006

Bush doesn’t have a neutron bomb. He does have FAEs however, which are still quite good. A better option than nuclear weapons, other than high altitude EMP bursts.

I think what Sala and Ralph here are doing is like a mirror dance. They both want the same thing, meaning in the end, victory one way or another. But Ralph sees the road to victory as going through the swamp, Salamander believes the road to victory is through the bridge. Ralph says that the bridge is trapped and will collapse, sealing our doom. Salamander says that the swamp will bog us down and make us retreat because our logistics will be cut.

In the mirror, to an outside observer, Salamander looks like Raph, but the details are different.

I’m not a graduate of West Point, I have no formal military training one way or the other. So I have to rely on out of the box knowledge and wisdom. Meaning, I have to go digging in the histories for pieces of information, that I then use to decide whether a military course of action is correct or not. There is no tried and true formula for me, other than real life examples.

I know some of the military philosophy and principles. Tactics, strategy, logistics. Instead of having to try out experimental and theoretical plans, and asking myself if I am doing the right thing, I can look at historical examples to see what they did, and attempt to mimic the successes and avoid the disasters.

So that’s a quick and dirt solution to the timeless question “What if you are wrong” and “How do you know that you are doing the right thing”.

When I think about retreating to Kurdistan and the Shia regions, I know what Ralph is thinking, his military principle. He believes that if he fights a longer war by retreating rather than occupying and holding territory, he can break the morale of the enemy completely. Unfortunately, it is too late for that. You could have done guerrila operations with local support in 2003, but not now. Not when we have already shed blood to build up local trust as an occupation force. You can’t just scrap everything and unleash a Lebanon style civil war now, you’d lose more than you’d gain. You’d also lose something else, and that is control.

The human psychology, for me, goes like this. If you had delayed the war in 2003, and pushed forces across to Basrah and air dropped the 101st into Kurdistan, in order to train up the local forces and assault towns using an Afghanistan style insurgency, then that would have caused the residents of Baghdad to blame Saddam and his goons for failure. However, we are now the occupying power, we are the power that protects their government, and everyone in Iraq knows this. If we retreat, it will be a loss of face, it will be a loss of respect and trust, because we have already occupied Iraq. You could have retreated had you not occupied Baghdad, but we did, due to military decisions made by those conversant in Cold War armor pushes. Bush didn’t have the knowledge or confidence to overrule the military, so he didn’t do it. So here we are.

Remember Sherman’s letter to Atlanta?


You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may.

To tolerate a division now, to tolerate a Lebanon civil war and strife is… not going to give you ultimate victory. Ralph doesn’t think like this, because Ralph believes things can be accomplished if you had 300,000 troops. Even with 300,000 troops, that’s not how you win an insurgency. If Ralph thinks he is going to fight conventional militias like Al Sadr, crush them, and parade through the streets, he has to consider the fact that the first thing that would happen is that Al Sadr would take control of towns and execute everyone who was loyal and helpful to Americans, his enemy.

What’s the use in retaking a town by crushing AL Sadr’s force when he already killed everyone who we were supposed to protect? Ralph seems to be a guy that believes in the bigger hammer approach. I favor more subtlety, like a submariner. Stealth, subversion, things of that nature.

Does it take a military genius to win with an overwhelming amount of force? No, it takes a military genius to take 50,000 troops and make it as if it is 300,000. How? By outsmarting the enemy, rather than overpowering him. Sun Tzu did say that the acme of battle jutsu was to defeat the enemy without fighting him at all, by breaking his moral.

Roach over at Blackfive also recommended a similar course of action. Sit back and let the Shia do the brutal purging, while we sit with clean hands.

It is a weird form of mirror dance. Ostensibly Roach and Ralph’s goals are an American victory, but their thought processes are unlike my own. And perhaps unlike yours as well. The confusion comes from all close it is, so close that you want to believe you agree, yet the differences in the details are too important to overlook.

Public Executions – Why Do It?

July 28, 2006

Roach has a list of tactics that I believe have a correct basis in human psychology and behavior. Of course I would think so, I favor most of them. There were several other good comments in the title link, don’t miss out.

Comment below written by: Roach

Bruce, thanks for your remarks. I too am trying my best to make sense of complicated events with limited information. It is undoubtedly difficult and the administration deserves some benefit of the doubt. That said, they specifically overruled the military’s original proposals to use 300,000 plus troops, in part, to show off Rumsfeld’s “transformation” concept.

I don’t have time to go point by point, but I wrote in December 2005, the following practical suggestions:

Recognition that security is the first priority. The real key to hearts and minds are not new textbooks, elections, and the occasional PR event, but delivering the goods that governments everywhere must deliver. Insufficient troops have been the cause of this festering problem, and a short-term plan should include the difficult decision to increase US force levels to 200,000 or more.
A political plan that empowers a single, powerful executive. Only such an empowered authority can cut the Gordian Knot of regional, sectarian, and tribal resistance to an effective central government.

A commitment to suppressing sources of extremism and disorder from sheiks, imams, and the press. “Freedom” does not and should not be misunderstood to include the freedom to support anarchy and terrorist resistance.

A deemphasis on the present strategy large-scale sweeps–Operation Matador, Operation Dawn–and more integration of US forces at the small unit level with Iraqi forces.

A plan for constructing and manning robust barrier on all of the relevant border crossing points.

A plan for massive investments in language training for US forces. Language barriers continue to hinder integration with Iraqi forces and US gathering of intelligence in Iraq and for the war on terror.

A plan for collective punishment of sources of support for the resistance: towns, mosques, etc. This should include curfews, removal of electricity, denial of local self-government, forced dispersal of populations, etc.

Swift, public executions of captured insurgents. There is presently little downside for these terrorists, who are often motivated by threats and bribes. A swift, certain death penalty would give them a major incentive not to.

Amnesty and rewards for insurgents who switch sides. The classic carrot and stick program, which worked very well in the latter part of the Vietnam War under the rubric of the Chieu Hoi program.

A plan for instituting identity card requirements nationwide under penalty of summary arrest. As it is, insurgents can hide because they can move about relatively unchecked and unaccounted for. Any identity card system should be used to gather evidence–fingerprints and photographs–to arrest those connected to IED and other attacks.

A plan for protecting and rewarding people and areas loyal to the government, e.g., “fortified hamlets,” and colocation of Iraqi forces, their families, and US troops.

Increased US reliance on helicopters and decreased reliance on the roads. Helicopter assault has proven to be the main way to leverage the mobility and capabilities of first world militaries entangled with insurgencies, e.g., Vietnam, Algeria.

I’d revise these today to say that we should consider (a) cutting losses because of our failure to implement some of these earlier and the lack of political possibility to do so now and (b) because the Shia seem more organized and capable of engaging the Sunnis with the kind of brutality we should disassociate ourselves from. A passing of the baton and isolation of US troops in a few bases to act against Iran and Syria without much involvement in the counter-insurgency would accomplish that goal.

Posted by: Roach | Jul 27, 2006 1:42:44 PM

Comment below written by: Bram

I believe that one of John Podhoretz’s points was that we have been winning battles in Iraq without making it obvious to the enemy that they lost.

The analogy would be an old UFC match in which Royce Gracie or Ken Shamrock achieves a very fast submission victory and advances in the tournament. Nobody is really hurt or even tired. Psychologically the loser may think he could have won and would be willing to go again immediately with slightly different tactics. I saw Kimo get up and try to fight Shamrock again seconds after being submitted in one fight. He lost the fight but was not beat down.

It is a great way to win a UFC tournament but not a war. After WWII, the Germans and Japanese new they were beat. The military and civilian casualties, property destruction and economic hardships affected every family. They were beat down in a terrible way and accepted occupation with little resistance (other than some acts by the Hitler youth). In Iraq, we won so fast and so cleanly that many of the Islamic fascists don’t feel that they’ve been beat.

Why not fight the Americans and Brits? If you aren’t killed in the firefight, there will probably be no consequences. They probably won’t hunt you down or destroy your property or harm your family, so why not?

I’m not suggesting that we start dropping Moab’s on population centers, but it is a factor that should be taken into consideration and examined by our leadership. How do we conduct a war in a way that gives us a psychological victory?

Posted by: Bram | Jul 27, 2006 12:19:58 PM
Segues nicely into Bookworm’s comment section here.

Another good resource is Sherman’s letter in reply to Atlanta. Sherman expressed the rationality behind total war quite well there. You’ve heard people quote him as “War is Hell” but what is behind that is a lot more intellectual and philosophical than it appears.

Lest it be thought that I agreed with certain portions of Roach’s argument that I in fact disagree, here’s a clarification. I think while Roach’s end result goals are similar to me, in that his tactics are designed to facilitate the same results as tactics I approve of, the reason why Roach comes up with these tactics differ from my own reasoning. For example, I don’t favor letting innocent people be hung out to dry, Iraqi or American, just because someone was too lazy to do the work of protecting them.

Roach would willingly and perhaps eagerly sacrifice the Iraqis if it was convenient for him to do so. Meaning, he’d stand back and let the Shia slaughter the Sunnis, and call it a day’s work well down.

I’d revise these today to say that we should consider (a) cutting losses because of our failure to implement some of these earlier and the lack of political possibility to do so now and (b) because the Shia seem more organized and capable of engaging the Sunnis with the kind of brutality we should disassociate ourselves from. A passing of the baton and isolation of US troops in a few bases to act against Iran and Syria without much involvement in the counter-insurgency would accomplish that goal.

His writing here shows a rather significant amount of callousness and lack of compassion. While that is sometimes necessary in a war, it should not be taken too far. Another reason why Roach’s reasoning differs from my own classical liberal positions, is that Roach wants to collectively punish towns. It is clear to people in the know that you will never equal the intimidation ability of terroists who kill, murder, slaughter, assassinate, and blow up anyone and anything that gets in their path. Cutting off the electricity as a punishment is no comparison to 30 days of torture that kidnapped hostages endure. Since it is no comparison, you should help the Iraqis rather than punish them. You help them by pocking up the terroists and hacking off their limbs, to display in a public square, of course.

So if you look carefully at Roach’s reasoning, not just the end result of his positions (which are, granted, similar if not exactly the same as mine), you will see that Roach’s reasoning is different from the classical liberal philosophy to free the oppressed, to help the downtrodden, and to secure the rights of humanity.

I’m sure protecting Iraqis is a concern of his, if only as a way to get more popular support and intel. But I do not believe it is very high on his personal priorities. This is a gulf that I cannot transverse. I want to say I agree, but I also have the wisdom to understand that you should not assume that someone is on the same page as you, just because they support the same policies as you.

After all Pat Buchanan is an isolationist, which combines him with Democrat isolationists, but he comes at it from a very different direction. Different polarities, equal charge.