Remote
sensing and swarms of precision weapons (missiles, rockets, cannon from the
low flying aircraft, drones, helicopters) can destroy any enemy from a
distance. Troops are peacekeepers not war fighters - future war are fought
with information systems and weapons directed from a distance.
Think
about cannon (and riflemen or infantry) - five hundred years ago they
required a important revaluation of methods and equipment in warfare
(warfighting) systems and changed the geo-political nature of the world. The
warlords or feudal aristocracy who depended on fortification or castles were
over run by central states and their batteries of cannon. Since the 14th
century because of the mass armies organized by centralized national states
and their armies became all powerful. Empires were based on the competitive
advantage of better cannons and boats.
Since
the development of cannon, people getting up front and personal and then
shooting at each other fought wars in close contact. Cannon and their
companions of rifles, machine guns, and the platforms from horse drawn
wagons to tanks to aircraft fought war with the same idea; to kill the enemy
by getting close enough to see the enemy and hitting him with shells and explosions
with shrapnel while the other side did the same thing.
First
in Panama, then in the gulf war precision weapons fired from remote platform
so weakened and terrified the enemy that infantry, tanks and cannon
were not needed to fight other soldiers in close contact. The 10% of modern
IT troops and weapons did 90% of the work, more of the same with
Yugoslavia and even more so in Afghanistan. So much for cannon - their time
has passed yet people still think and talk about World War II type battles
thus tanks, troops, old industrial style rust belt weapons and military
organizations.
The White House warned Congress on Thursday against
trying to save the Army's $11 billion Crusader artillery system, saying
President Bush stood firmly behind Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's
decision to cancel the weapon and find alternatives. (with self propelled
shells from light launch pads that guide themselves to targets or smart
cheap mass produced missiles)
Rumsfeld's decision to kill the
Crusader system has drawn heavy fire from lawmakers from states where the
155mm self-propelled howitzer and its components are built by United Defense
Industries Inc. .
House Republican Conference
Chairman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, where the Crusader is assembled, and other
key lawmakers have vowed to fight the cancellation in what analysts see as a
test of Rumsfeld's ability to push through reforms he thinks are needed to
transform the U.S. military.
Geo-political military
strategy:
The American homogeny limits itself
by its vulnerability to unconventional warfare. The only path is
globalization of security arrangements where the new warfare systems owned
by US but are used by the UN security council for purposes of protecting the
global economy, international business and trade by reducing threats
from rogue nations and independent non-state actors. The very technology
that makes America dominate power relationships also requires
internationalizing of the rule of law and police powers. There was hope that
Atomic weapons because of their terrible dangers would force international
peace to be taken more seriously. It was to some extent but MAD (mutual
assured destruction) does not lend itself to police and peace keeping
functions. You can't nuke the rogues and bad guys and they know it.
But you can attack by stealth, quietly in the night, silent weapons creep up
and ZAP there is only a dark greasy spot where the bad guys used to be.
Of the three important elements in strategic balance -
geography, energy and technology - the first two have traditionally favored
the Arabs in the considerations of the security planners in Washington. In
order to maintain its balance, Israel used the political leverage of the
American president and Congress. The Saudi Arabian peninsula is losing its
relative power as the oil well of the West, but even during the years of
total dependence on the Persian Gulf, the oil produced in the peninsula had
an essential partner in American emergency plans - the military base. http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=160381&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=160381
Powerful countries that wish to operate beyond their borders need bases - if
not a permanent air or naval base, then at least one at which they can
refuel; if not for mounting operations, then at least for gathering
intelligence; and if not for takeoffs, then at least for landings. The local
neighbors which have hosted western bases charged a political fee for their
hospitality. The claim that the foreign armies in these bases also protected
their hosts was countered by the contention that the foreign presence
fomented the local populations and endangered the stability of the regimes.
There is an interesting and very
important connection between "War-fighting" systems and state
power and international relationships.
In simple terms the transformed
military is an IT, space based, joint strike forces who can project
power from limited ground based facilities - the new ideas reduce the need
for expensive and politically complex bases (such as in Germany and Korea,
Saudi Arabia, Japan etc.) the reduce the need and expense of these
facilities and soldiers while increasing the costs of mobility, precision
weapons, lighter, faster, intergraded smart weapons with new and vastly
improved battlefield information systems - using drones, satellites, space
based weapons, means the American Military can quickly dominate any
territory from fewer bases, less ground troops, using air power rather than
tanks and artillery.
Over history changes in military
technology has meant critical shifts in geo-politics. Canons made walls less
useful and the local "war lords" of Europe and China fell to
national armies creating nation states. Nation states such as Spain, Britain
and then the USA could organize sea power to project gun boat diplomacy and
create global empires far from home with far flung bases, refueling
facilities, and oil reserves. With Napoleon and the American Civil war, mass
Armies with artillery, railroads and telegraph used better weapons, machine
guns, howitzers, tanks, aircraft created the deadly great land wars of
the 19th and 20th century. The current military structure is still based on
massive land wars especially in Europe against the USS-was. What all those
Marines are doing in Okinawa is anyone's guess - protecting South Korea?
Globalization of warfare, the
ability to fight anywhere, anytime, from anywhere creates a whole new
strategy using different weapons in different ways. The idea of cannon,
artillery, troops with light and heavy weapons, was to attack and destroy
enemy where they could be located and massive force could be brought in,
such as moving 500,000 troops and lots of equipment in the Gulf
war.
The new idea would be to destroy
Iraq's forces using precision weapons from a distance without large bases or
many troops. Precision fired cannon are missiles, air is less helicopters
and fighters and more predator remote guided drones and smart bombs from
high flying aircraft, ground observation and targeting is less from special
forces and native spotters and more from remote sensing devices. So an Army
in the middle east could be destroyed from computer consoles at Home in
Tampa Florida or Virginia. It is also unlikely anyone can match or defend
against this capacity except by asymmetrical warfare. It
makes the nation state undependable while it makes "international
terrorism" the only viable enemy.
The American homogeny limits itself
by its vulnerability to unconventional warfare. The only path is
globalization of security arrangements where the new warfare systems are
used by the UN security council for purposes of protecting the global
economy and trade and reducing threats from rogue actors. The very
technology that makes America dominate also requires internationalizing of
the rule of law and police powers. There was hope that Atomic weapons
because of their terrible dangers would force international peace to be
taken more seriously. It was to some extent but MAD (mutual assured
destruction) does not lend itself to police and peace keeping functions.
You can't nuke the rogues and bad guys and they know it. But you can
attack by stealth, quietly in the night, silent weapons creep up and ZAP
there is only a dark greasy spot where the bad guy used to be.
The failure of the Gulf States to prevent attacks
against the American forces stationed there prompted the Pentagon to develop
a different operational concept - from a distance. This is also a tempting
idea since in the absence of conscription, young people shy away from
military service if it means long sojourns away from home; and it is
possible mainly due to the maturation of war technologies - navigation and
control, both from space and from the depths of the oceans - at U.S.-based
facilities. There is no need to live in Kuwait in order to attack Iraq; one
can make a lightning strike from Colorado. Instead of being "high
profile," military presence can be low profile and remote.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has strengthened America's
relationship with Turkey and the various central Asian countries that host
bases. In aspiring to transform the American army, Rumsfeld encountered
opposition on the part of the conservative military leadership, which
refuses to give up the weapons systems of previous wars. The conservative
generals have connived with their friends in Congress to invest billions of
dollars in upgrading these systems. Rumsfeld wants that money for weapons
for future wars. This week, the Pentagon erupted with the affair of the
army's efforts to foil Rumsfeld's decision to cancel the Crusader mobile
artillery.
But the Saddam's devil is in the
Pentagon details. While we see the need and benefits of a regime change for
the better the issue is can it be done and at what cost. The great problem
is always if you do one thing what are you not doing - War work or
Peace work, human development or destruction, the four freedoms - Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity and happiness or power politics,
force and violence.
America became a great industrial
power in the 20th century by becoming the great arsenal of democracy rather
than a focus on a massive land based Army. The decision was made in WW II to
mobilize less than one third of the divisions needed for an invasion of
Europe. We counted on Russia to provide the troops and take the casualties
while we build 10,000's of aircraft and provide weapons. The results of the
massive air war were mixed - the reductions came in the civilian sector and
military production was maintained - the population was terrorized but
continued to work and produce. During the Cold War, we defended Europe with
Atomic blackmail with symbolic land forces which were expected to be over
run in days. All our technology only prolonged and make more terrible the
war in Korea and Vietnam. If we want to pull down the regime in Iraq we need
ground forces of 100,000's engaged in messy fights - therefore we will need
allies - land wars is just not our thing. Our military is 3/4
tail and only 1/4 bite - we require a logistics system which is very
complex. A few fast, mobile, inventive special forces can effect small wars
but not middle size ones.
A botched operation is much worse
than no mission at all.
In the case of a long messy war, the
anti-militarism passions and activities are still out there, the
growing world view of America is acting as a bully because it has much more
military power than the rest of the world combined will fuel protests and
left wing activity.
In history, since the raise of the
nation state, such a unequal balance of power among states creates a
strong desire for the weaker nations to regain more influence by
ganging up on the bully - In the 16th century it was against Spain, then
against France in the 18th, then against Britain in the 19th, then Germany
and Russia in the 20th century and now US.
Since there is no military option,
the European Union which is now a super power will use diplomatic,
psychological, economic and other means to get America more in line. The
weaker states turn to terror tactics.
1.) There is not an organized
opposition in Iraq such as the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan - the Wall
Street Journal front-paged a 2,000-word piece from the Kurdish area of Iraq
that made clear the Kurds had never had it so good with their share of Iraqi
oil sales and wanted no part in a war to remove Saddam from power. Turkey is
very concerned about renewed Kurdish problems of its own.
2.) Iraq has at least 10 times more
military capacity than Afghanistan and a semi-modern state with the ability
to retaliate in most unpleasant ways. The forces can be mixed into civilian
populations not out in the open - there is no front line. It is possible
even billions in smart bombs and other precision-guided munitions will not
cause a regime change. Populations under attack then to pull together not
apart.
3.) Turkey is quite uncertain, Israel
already has enough problems - Arabs are opposed so our regional base is
soft.
4.) Afghanistan is not over by a long
shot leaving the right flank exposed.
5.) Worse case scenario is quite
scary - instability causing a coup in Saudi Arabia, a oil crisis, attacks in
force on Israel, more terrorist attacks, energizing the Anti-American forces
of a billion Moslems. It could radicalize Iran even more -
But the thinking is that only reason
for not going after the Iraqi leader as an addendum to Afghanistan, another
media insider explained, is that the Pentagon had to replenish its almost
exhausted arsenal of smart bombs and other precision-guided munitions.
Clearly Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who was among the
guests, and his let's-get-Saddam-now hawkish followers within the
administration, has won the intra-mural struggle against Secretary Powell.
But the Saddam devil is in the Pentagon details.
That the Kurds will rise up against Saddam as soon as the first bombs
fall was another given at the vice president's party. Two days later, the
Wall Street Journal front-paged a 2,000-word piece from the Kurdish area of
Iraq that made clear the Kurds had never had it so good with their share of
Iraqi oil sales and wanted no part in a war to remove Saddam from power.
Another question raised with the conservative opinion-makers was what
happens if the U.S. victory in Afghanistan continues to unravel as it
appears to be doing. There was a response for all the caveats. "We
should not be involved in Afghanistan beyond the defeat of al-Qaeda and
Taliban," said another stalwart.
What happens if Saddam does not sit this out waiting for the
superpower to strike? He may well agree to a return of U.N. inspectors --
whatever weapons of mass destruction capability he has accumulated is well
hidden by now and presumably beyond discovery -- under the 1991 U.N.
Resolution 687?
Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone
Saddam is reported to be leaning in that direction with a little
wrinkle designed to sway Arab opinion: Resolution 687 has an unimplemented
provision that calls for "the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free
zone in the Middle East region." Israel is known to have a nuclear
arsenal of some 300 weapons. Such a ploy would automatically garner the
support of the Arab league of 22 nations.
America became a great industrial power by becoming the arsenal of
democracy rather than a mass land based Army. The decision was made in WW II
to mobilize less than one third of the divisions needed for an invasion of
Europe. We counted on Russia to provide the troops and take the casualties
while we build 10,000's of aircraft and provide weapons. The results of the
massive air war were mixed - the reductions came in the civilian sector and
military production was maintained - the population was terrorized but
continued to work and produce. All our technology only prolonged and make
more terrible the war in Vietnam. If we want to pull down the regime in Iraq
we need ground forces of 100,000's engaged in messy fights - therefore
allies -
The real and the ideal – both are
required -
The Washington Post’s
Matthew Brzeznski has a must-read
piece about a foiled terrorist plot
in the Philippines. Some of those questioned after the failed plot
admitted that among future terror plans were efforts to go to flight
school, get some planes, drive ‘em into the Capitol, Pentagon,
skyscrapers, and in general kill thousands of innocent Americans with
winged fuel bombs.
The plot was foiled six years ago. In other words, the Clinton
administration and the U.S. intelligence community knew in the mid-1990s
of credible plans for 9/11-style attacks where kamikaze aircraft would be
used to kill Americans. Knowing as we do now what our government and
intelligence communities knew and when they knew it is maddening.
In 1995, Aida Fariscal, a senior
inspector for the Philippine police, took down an al Qaeda cell that had
been plotting to fly explosives-laden planes into the Pentagon -- and
possibly some skyscrapers
Lets say 20,000 people had training in
Afghanistan and a few thousand elsewhere - and 1/3 are interested and
have capacity to go into cells and have some ability to attack. Some
others are sleepers. The majority of these active cells are in Europe,
many in Canada and some in the US, others widely distributed.
This gives an upper limit of about 10,000
activist (from a population base of a billion in the "nation"
of Islam in 60 majority Islamic countries) The cells form associations
of loosely attached groups and individuals of about 12 to 20 people. The
WTC air attack cells connected through Hamburg and involved about this
number.
So there are likely to be 500 planning
groups going on around the world - police activity may find or disrupt
10% (the record in drug enforcement) maybe 20% but that still leaves a
number of possibilities - 300 possible attacks on communications,
energy, transportation, banks, political centers - landmark building -
Lets guess the military action has cut this capacity by 50% - travel
restrictions some more - leaves 50 groups in America - I expect
something anytime - the Authorities must agree or they would not be
doing all the things they are doing that disrupt travel, stress local
police, et al.
What are the going rates on the Lincoln
bedroom? Would you sleep peacefully in the Whitehouse? The fact that it
has not happened does not mean it will not happen. The goal of these
groups is to weaken the economic power of US and believe a small group
of actors can disrupt a complex economy and panic the population. What
and when is anyone's guess - adds to the mystery - What Hitchcock did to
create tension in a movie was the time bomb under the table - the
audience knew but the actors when on with their lives - tension grows -
35 Then
one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and
saying, 36 Master,
which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus
said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This
is the first and great commandment. 39 And
the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
The world as we experience it is
partly illusion. We have familiarity with a flat earth that stands still
while the sun rises and falls over us. Science requires special care and
methods to validate experience with experiments, observations and
confirmations. Science cannot fathom the spirit or dreams of humans and
other animals. These imaginary worlds are real in our heads, shaped by our
social environment where those around us confirm dreams as reality and
illusions are facts. The all
too solid earth is mostly space between forces called atoms which behave in
ways completely out of our awareness.
The romantic love of God leading to a
mystic union with the beloved is beyond everyday people and life, the idea
of true selflessness, outside our tribal families, is also unlikely and
rare. But people keep trying to be more spiritual, more kind, better members
of the holy family or church and try to behave, believe, and act by the
ideals of the community of saints.
In the same way we can not make a
perfect world, we can not solve everyone’s problems, so the great divide
between the fifth of the earths people who live in technical cultures with
their wealth, military and economic power and the 3/5th of
peoples and cultures left behind, tribal, superstitious, primitive, poor,
and the gap keeps growing – the rich getting richer and the poor getting
poorer and more numerous and a greater proportion of all peoples.
The well off cannot live in peace and
prosperity in such a world.There
are no gates high enough, there are no seas wide enough, and there are no
mountains that can keep the technically dependent cultures from the
disruption of irregular warfare.Security
is our world is an illusion and an impossible dream – just as the
Christian message and salvation by faith alone is only conjure based on
hope and fantasy. BUT we must keep trying or just become a pragmatic,
practical, materialist nation and people, without high culture, poetry,
having no vaster ambitions, beyond history – we need to live in history
knowing where we came from and where we want to go, having a sense of
mission for humanity - BUT –
Legends, Myths and Fairy Tales;
Wars and personal conflicts become
violent when both sides do not figure out each other and the others
intentions. World War I was a classic lack of understanding as explained in
the “Guns of August” by
Barbara W. Tuchman which JFK asked people read during the Cuban
missile crisis. Understanding does not mean approval. Napoleon and Germany
underestimated Russia as did Japan fail to take a realistic view of American
power, southerners did not know what the North would do to preserve the
union, the Allies did not prepare for German aggression because they did not
take seriously the nature of the threat, thus conflict comes when there is a
lack of realism.
The lack of realism is due not to
both sides just being stupid or stubborn, while there is always plenty of
that, they always remember where they buried the last hatchet, BUT because
of false beliefs, legends, myths, and fairy tales – racism, nationalism,
Nazi romantic mythology, Japanese jingoism and cults, Southern cultural
mythology preserved in “gone with the wind”, communism, Christian
crusades, British imperialism, the ugly American bully capitalist cultural
and economic empire and other sad stories of people with false beliefs and
passionate attachments to dreams and fairy tales based on a little knowledge
showing little interest in paying attention to the concerns, character and
intentions of others.Extreme
Moslems do not understand us and we don’t understand them and neither side
cares to change the situation.
Imaginary stories are important and
powerful, from history, tribal customs, religion, entertainment, politics,
and the dreamland of the collective consciousness. Yes, Santa Claus is a
vigorous and good spirit, Virginia, as are Joe Hill and Thomas Jefferson who
will be in spirit where ever men are not free, along with the evil one, the
great devil, and how Disney made it’s fortune retelling European
children’s story. Our history as is most a narration dominated by legends
and myths used to increase loyalty and self love. We know and love ourselves
and know how we are superior and better than others.We love ourselves much better than our neighbors because we are
better than they are. Osama bin Laden’s mythology is similar; he knows he
is superior to the corrupt Americans.
We have helped to create and fallen
for Osama bin Laden’s mythology, he believed we were the weak horse and
would not be capable of massive response. Clearly both sides do not know
each other and the conflict increases the misunderstanding and makes legends
and myths more important as patriotism takes over from curiosity.Blowback is when people believe in their own propaganda, how
wonderful they are, how evil the enemy is, how god is on their side.
Nationalism takes the form of the cultural and the religious moralist and
superiority of certain knowledge.
Several forms of mythology about
America are now in conflict – Some have heard and believe the story that
America is a specially divine place, a Zion, separate from the gross
materialism and power politics of the old world which is in conflict with
the myth of America as the great fiend, as a evil imperialist empire. Both
stories are powerful but false legends, as are the legends in Palestine and
Israel, so real people die real deaths involved in the unreal popular fairy
tales that become doctrine and articles of faith.Nations are shaped and formed by their myths, people come together
united in vague dreams and stories, such as the legends of the “Holy
Land”, America’s mission to humanity, the Nation of Islam, international
socialism, racism, dreams of the after life, heaven and hell, stories often
told and sometimes beloved, commonly believed, and unlikely to be
questioned.
This blind belief causes the lack of
interest in the reality of the enemy, causes gross mistakes and a clear and
present danger to real security and safety BUT built into human culture and
psychology. This doesn’t mean we give up and fall into a crude
existentialism, or any of several philosophical systems of the 20th century.
Or logical positivism, also known as
scientific EMPIRICISM, modern school of philosophy that in the 1920s
attempted to introduce the methodology and precision of mathematics to the
study of philosophy, much as had been done in symbolic logic (see LOGIC).
Led by the Vienna Circle, a group including the philosophers Rudolf CARNAP
and Moritz Schlick and the mathematician Kurt GÖDEL, the logical
positivists held that metaphysical speculation is nonsensical; that logical
and mathematical propositions are tautological; and that moral and value
statements are merely emotive. The function of philosophy, they maintained,
is to clarify concepts in both everyday and scientific language. The
movement received its inspiration from the work of FREGE, Bertrand RUSSELL,
WITTGENSTEIN, and G.E. MOORE. The Vienna Circle disintegrated in the late
1930s after the Nazis took Austria, but its influence spread throughout
Europe and America, and its concept, particularly its emphasis on the
analysis of language as the function of philosophy, has been carried on
throughout the West.
KIERKEGAARD developed a Christian
existentialism that recognized the concrete ethical and religious demands
confronting the individual, who is forced each time to make a subjective
commitment. The necessity and seriousness of these decisions cause him dread
and despair. Following Kierkegaard, HEIDEGGER and SARTRE, both students of
HUSSERL, were the major thinkers of the movement. Heidegger rejected the
label of existentialism, describing his philosophy as an investigation of
the nature of being in which the analysis of human existence is only a first
step. For Sartre, the only self-declared existentialist among the major
thinkers, existence precedes essence: there is no God and no fixed human
nature; thus, each person is totally free and entirely responsible for what
he or she becomes and does. This responsibility accounts for human dread and
anguish. Sartre influenced the writings of CAMUS and de BEAUVOIR. A
Christian existentialism was developed in France by Gabriel Marcel, a Roman
Catholic. The religious thinkers Karl BARTH, Paul TILLICH, Reinhold NIEBUHR,
and Martin BUBER, and the philosopher Karl JASPERS are often included in the
orbit of existentialism.
An attitude adjustment: Good cop, bad
cop
If there are groups in 60 countries who feel angry,
left out, aggressive and they have the means and methods to make life
uncomfortable for the developed world – the only solution is to protect
ourselves, while working on reducing the causes of resentment, inequality,
anger, hate, violence and terror. Just like in Palestine and Israel –
people have a right to self-defense but only working on social justice and
the conditions of peace can anyone rests safely.We need more godfather and less Rambo – more stealth and less
bombing.We can shift policy
without appearing inconsistent but not without antagonizing some ideological
conservative and liberal activist. Some political heat has to be taken for
being more cooperative, non-ideological, practical and effective.
What
we need to do:
The
good cop understands and wants to help you,
The
bad cop is ready to take you apart piece by piece
Together
they can be persuasive and you need both.
First international
intelligence integration along with domestic restricting of
anti-terrorist efforts, (the smart cop – undercover – as fish to water)
Second, international military and police work along with better
borders, migration and inspection and control;(the tough cop)
Third, project a new attitude, more cooperative, more emphasis on a better
world – a kinder, friendlier world power, make more friends, have less
enemies, have fewer reasons people are angry with us. (The good cop)
The President first tells everyone we want to work with
the G8, EU and Russia in improving the godfather aspects of civil defense.
NO police work can produce the elimination of crime but smart global
intelligence can made conspiracies more difficult to succeed. Ashcroft, the
CIA and FBI should travel more – see more, know more. Ideological and
political objectives are second to making friends and influencing people by
meeting them half way, listening to their concerns, learning how they work
and what they want and need.
The first is happening, we are developing useful ties
to global intelligence networks and getting better at tracking, and rolling
up cells and suspects.
The second of global use of force, under more global
control and command - police and criminal justice has not been structured
between Special Forces, CIA, FBI, international units, and targeted hit
teams.A stable and experienced
UN military and intelligence command linked to NATO and other alliances can
be sort of created under cover for Peace keeping and peace making.Military government, trusteeship or receivership of failed
states or during transitions can be ready to go with relief, security,
essential services and psychological warfare.(Balkans, East Timor, Africa and elsewhere besides Afghanistan)
International justice should be in international courts.
The third way starts with all international
representatives told to go along and get along. No more my way or the high
way both with domestic issues or international choices, a kinder, friendlier
super power.This is the core
of the attitude adjustment – people just get mad if you appear indifferent
to their problems and look like a bully. While we must use force we have to
be just and moderate or we become a global tyrant rather than a good cop.
The third is a new level of rhetoric – as a memorial
to those who died we will build a better world, more open, fair, just and
safe.We will drift toward
international law enforcement, police work and criminal justice including
courts and procedures. Individuals, groups, nations are expected to live
inside norms – and when they don’t they can expect certain pressures
from talk, sanctions, blockages, economic penalties, travel restrictions,
covert destabilizations, helping of their internal and external opposition,
sabotage, espionage, special operations and war in that order. But not
unilateral but multilateral – you are in the community of nations and
international law or you are subject to pressure to get with the right
attitude.
Their hope is to black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail) the United States into abandoning our war on
terror, and forsaking our friends and allies and security commitments
around the world. Our enemies are bound for disappointment. America
will never be black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail)ed, and we will never forsake our commitment
to liberty. (He was talking of "almost every state that
actively sponsors terror is known to be seeking weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them at longer and longer
ranges" rather than terrorist groups not nations using balloons,
boats, trucks, civilian planes, suitcases, containers, et al are all more
likely then missiles - not atomic bombs but stateless bioterrorist)
To win this war, we have to think differently. The
enemy who appeared on September 11th seeks to evade our strength and
constantly searches for our weaknesses. So America is required
once again to change the way our military thinks and fights. And
starting on October 7th, the enemy in Afghanistan got the first glimpses
of a new American military that cannot, and will not, be evaded. (Applause.)
The need for military transformation was clear before
the conflict in Afghanistan, and before September the 11th. Here
at the Citadel in 1999, I spoke of keeping the peace by redefining war on
our terms. The same recommendation was made in the strategic
review that Secretary Rumsfeld briefed me on last August -- a review that
I fully endorse. What's different today is our sense of urgency
-- the need to build this future force while fighting a present war. It's
like overhauling an engine while you're going at 80 miles an hour. Yet
we have no other choice.
Our military has a new and essential mission. For
states that support terror, it's not enough that the consequences be
costly -- they must be devastating. (Applause.) The
more credible this reality, the more likely that regimes will change their
behavior -- making it less likely that America and our friends will need
to use overwhelming force against them.
Our commanders are gaining a real-time picture of the entire
battlefield, and are able to get targeting information from sensor to
shooter almost instantly. Our intelligence professionals and
special forces have cooperated in battle-friendly -- with battle-friendly
Afghan forces -- fighters who know the terrain, who know the Taliban, and
who understand the local culture. And our special forces have
the technology to call in precision air strikes -- along with the
flexibility to direct those strikes from horseback, in the first cavalry
charge of the 21st century. (Applause.)
This combination -- real-time intelligence, local allied forces,
special forces, and precision air power -- has really never been used
before. The conflict in Afghanistan has taught us more about
the future of our military than a decade of blue ribbon panels and
think-tank symposiums.
The Predator is a good example. This unmanned aerial vehicle
is able to circle over enemy forces, gather intelligence, transmit
information instantly back to commanders, then fire on targets with
extreme accuracy.
A diagram and assembly instructions for a dirty bomb
have been found in Afghanistan in recent weeks, bolstering the view
that bin Laden's recent boast that he had nuclear weapons might not have
been hollow.
Most worrying, however, are intelligence reports leaked
to Bob Woodward, the Washington Post's Watergate reporter, which detail a
meeting this year at which the unnamed al-Qa'eda operative produced the
supposed canister of radioactive material.
According to the report, fear of a radiological bomb
explains why vice-president Dick Cheney is so rarely seen alongside
President Bush, and spends most of his time at a secure location outside
the capital.
Fear of a risk to the president's life from a sniper or a
car bomb would not explain why Mr. Cheney is so frequently outside
Washington.
So far as is known, no radiological bomb has ever been
detonated, but they could be extremely simple to assemble and transport
once the bombers had obtained and learnt how to handle the nuclear
material.
The most likely means of detonating a "dirty"
explosion would be with a quantity of Semtex high explosive packed
together with radioactive material such as spent fuel rods, probably
stolen from a nuclear installation.
The bomb would not cause enormous physical damage, but
would be designed to pollute a city with huge levels of radioactive
poisoning. "You could carry that around in a suitcase, that's the
problem," said Richard Butler, former head of the United Nations team
which investigated Saddam Hussein's nuclear and chemical ambitions.
Given the simplicity of the technology of the bomb, CIA
concerns are focused on al-Qa'eda's ability to obtain the nuclear
material.
Pakistan has detained two scientists in its own covert
nuclear programme, and questioned them about their links to groups in
Afghanistan. One of them was reportedly assigned a desk job after publicly
backing the Taliban.
Pakistan said today that it had detained two retired nuclear
scientists after the recent discovery in offices they had used in
Afghanistan of documents describing ways to use anthrax as a weapon and
other suspicious material.
The diagrams of the balloons seem to show a possible method for
slowly dispersing some type of biological or chemical agent from the
air. Words scribbled in the diagram appear to say "cyanide."
One diagram found in the Kabul offices show four balloons flying
together in tandem with a box around them. The box appears to show how
the agent would be dispersed across a wide area.
The house, like others in the Afghan capital apparently used by Osama
bin Laden's terrorist network, Al Qaeda, seems to have been hastily
abandoned when the Taliban fled Kabul two weeks ago. It is not clear who
may have been in the house since then,
By 1937, the ambitious Ishii had established a vast germ warfare
complex in Pingfan, a small village outside the Manchurian city of
Harbin. The complex, innocuously dubbed Unit 731, was composed of over
150 buildings and nearly 3,500 researchers and employees.
Ishii's scientists concentrated their studies on anthrax, as well
as typhus, plague, cholera, botulism, smallpox, tularemia and
encephalitis.
In addition to anthrax-filled artillery shells, Unit 731
experimented extensively with hot-air balloons filled with the deadly
disease.
Declassified documents from Fort Detrick, a military research
facility in Frederick, Md., (the installation's name was changed from
Camp Detrick after the war) partially portray a frightening scenario
that might have been had World War II gone on much longer.
Beginning in late 1944, areobiologists at Camp Detrick were placed
on high alert after several reports were received from western states
that large balloons, some up to 150 feet around, had been sighted
silently floating over populated areas.
After the Allied victory over Japan, U.S. Army and intelligence
agents also moved swiftly to capture Japan's Unit 731 anthrax-bomb
technology and other research. The initial job fell to Col. Murray
Sanders, a Camp Detrick (its name during the war) bacteriologist.
Earlier, Sanders had been part of Camp Detrick's investigation team
into the Japanese balloon incidents. Sanders had sounded the first
alarm about the mysterious balloons flying over the U.S. possibly
being armed with anthrax.
Decades later, in an interview, Sanders said, "Anthrax is a
tough bug. It's sturdy. It's cheap to produce, and [the Japanese had]
used it in China." In a 1985 interview with the Miami Herald,
A declassified Department of Army report dated Feb. 24, 1977,
contains a lengthy list of locations where "biological field
testing of anti-personnel biological simulates involving the public
domain" were held. Included on the list are San Francisco, Panama
City, Florida, Washington, D.C., Hawaii and New York City. In 1953 and
1954, Fort Detrick scientists working with the CIA conducted secret
tests with anthrax simulates in New York City's subway system.
Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William Broad, the article
told of a secret CIA project, code-named Clear Vision, that since 1996
built and tested several model anthrax bombs that were replicated on
"a Soviet-designed germ bomb that agency officials feared was
being sold on the international market."
The CIA project grew out of concerns that Russian scientists
"had implanted genes from Bacillus cereus, an organism that
causes food poisoning, into the anthrax microbe."
We
are that close to Martial Law:
With
military courts, National Guard troops at critical facilities, and a
reorganized “homeland” command structure – we are prepared for martial
law if and when the civilian system fails when under attack. Lincoln did it
– arrested the mayor of Biltmore for rebellion, hung draft rioters in New
York, more or less sent the Supreme Court Home, surrounded the capitol with
troops, he rules by decree and got legislation after the fact, in order to
fight the war and preserve the union. Bush is no Churchill or is he a
Lincoln – but what you see is what you get.
RE:
'Overkill' anthrax in letter to Leahy Envelope likely spread spores to
others
<<How
many American lives will be sacrificed for foreign policy objectives? >>
Peter,
I find this a perverse question.
Neither
our enemy nor our military see them as terrorists or criminals – that is
rhetoric.Both the enemy and
our military leaders understand that we are fighting an asymmetrical war.It is the only way the weak can fight the strong, as you’ve said
before.
If
the enemy had the forces we have, they would be using their nuclear
weapons and their daisy cutters on our cities.Americans would not be hit because they happened to live next door
to an Air Force base.They
would be hit because they lived in New York or Atlanta.
Would
you call that black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail)?If
they offered to cease their terror bombing conditional upon our surrender
would that be black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail)?Of
course not.It would be war.
Conversely,
if we were to “tough it out”, and persevere in the war, accepting our
losses and inflicting worse, knowing we were fighting for nothing less
than the survival of our culture, how could one say we were sacrificing
our own lives “for foreign policy objectives?”To call the defense of Western civilization a foreign policy
objective is downright weird.
What
if the Brits had asked the same question of Churchill?They would today be speaking a scary dialect of German. (The
question is do we have the quality of the Brits who stood alone in 1940 or
are we a spoiled, softies who run at the first scare - Anthrax is been
mainly a scare where the response has done more damage that the problem -
my vote is that we will not stand but will run in circles waving our arms
in the air with panic - and our dysfunctional political system can not
withstand much - and since the political system is broken and the Republic
will fall apart under attack because Bush is no Churchill, Congress is no
parliament, Americans are no Brits – and the Military will take over
under military rule and law to preserve the union – they are ready –
no one else is )
No,
they are not doing anything remotely resembling “black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail)”.Nor are we pursuing a “foreign policy objective.”We are fighting a war in which they use (by necessity perhaps) more
ugly methods than we.
(Of
course, you may just be having fun with words -- the word “Anthrax”
translates “black” and it’s in the mail!But this would be lost on many.)
The
issue is there is NO discussion that in a "real" war real people
get killed - and civilian populations have been targets since the use of
air power - i.e. for a long time in real wars. ( I was "a baby born
under bombs" in Barcelona in Oct 1936 - Italians and Germans - terror
bombing was a new idea and quite a scandal in Spain - )
We
have never been attacked at home (since 1812) and domestic population have
never been under the gun - the MAD thing with USSR was a game -
We
have acted as if there are NO consequences of our behavior of pushing
people around - bomb Iraq, support Israelis occupation of the territories
(what ever we say we always support Israel because of the Jewish lobby
power in US politics)
We will not get very far if we don't understand what is going on - how
we are organized to respond, and the current nature of international
black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail). The discussion has been off the point - good and evil, global
problems or just people who hate us - all this maybe true but miss the
vital issues - power, money, oil and Iraq.
If contemporary Islamic terror can be considered a variety
of totalitarian terror, it becomes clearer just how limited the injustice
theory and the question of "root causes" are. No doubt,
injustices and policies can be argued over, but not as root causes of
terror. Totalitarianism stands above such niceties. No injustices,
separately or together, necessarily lead to totalitarianism and no
mitigation of injustice, however defined, will eliminate its unwavering
beliefs, absolutist control and unbounded ambitions. Claims of "root
causes" are distractions from the real work at hand.
Off base - what are the real material causes
Poverty and inequality play a big part in the background -
as in nation states the world is more stable with a big middle class, open
opportunity for many, free markets, democracy and hope for the down
trodden. A nation or a world with vast inequality and hopelessness can not
be stable and peaceful - but it is not the immediate cause of the attack
on the U.S.
Ideological and political extremism is part of the causes but
not sufficient. They did not go through all this just because that hate
us. They want something, not just ideas or fancy of an Islamic nation but
real thing in the real world. What they want is control of the real
base, the real cause of wars in the region is OIL, the core of middle
eastern politics and the war on Iraq. A long term and organized military
(covert espionage and sabotaging our economic and political system) is not
an activity of a crazy minority - but of state action. Iraq feels they
have lost a battle but not the war. If you make people really angry they
need to be disabled from revenge. The Afghanistan situation is a double
blind - or patsy - if you attack a big power you need good cover and
distractions otherwise they nuke you.
In Italy some years ago some especially nasty kidnappers took
the child of a rich family. They sent the family a part from their child -
a toe or finger and offered to sent the child back in pieces if not paid
off. The black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail)ers have send us one message in civil aircraft crashing
into the WTC - better and more real than a rogue nation with missiles -
more powerful, cheaper, more accurate, and no one really know source
except the belief in the double blind - the lone gunman - ( the
Afghans and Bin Laden do not know who they are working with ) - we have
received one finger and a note to pay up. (really to back off) The next
message will be balloons with 50 Kilos of Anthrax down wind from DC that
will kill a Hiroshima size population in DC (150,000) Then marital law,
economic and political panic, censorship, or the Oh. Shit syndrome.
We will not get very far if we don't understand what is going
on - how we are organized to respond, and the current nature of
international black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail).
In
the weeks that followed September 11, we received the statements of 17
of the living Nobel Peace Prize winners.
In conclusion, we call upon the governments and peoples of the world to
take concrete steps in developing a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence.
The response of the United States and its allies should not be driven by
a blind desire for vengeance, but rather a renewed determination to work
for a peaceful and just world.
There is a practical idealism -
real politics requires force to take down enemies - real economics, and
global politics require a new effort at a civic order - the rule of
law, commonly respected due process, of social justice - and
more equality of wealth and power - otherwise history has shown:
The US has shown it does not care
about the lives of people of lesser non-European countries and breeds
and also at the same time has strong humanitarian desires. We did not
count the millions killed in Vietnam only our own, or 100,000's in Iraq
only our own few, we do lesser a percentage per capita in real
foreign assistance (not counting military and the bulk goes to Israel,
Egypt and other semi-military arrangements) than any other rich country
as a government and a good deal more as citizens and NGO's.
The issue comes down to
internationalism, global vision, a common humanity, a family of man, a
community of nations - are we in or out - can we go beyond nationalism
to interdependence - still a great country but part of a larger whole.
If not we will not RIP - there is no border, there is no barrier, there
is no frontier to protect us from them - the billions of desperate poor,
the diseases of poverty, the terror of hopelessness, the power of
violent ideas to attack and bring down a complex technical civilization
-
Struggle
with big new concepts:
Are
we too comfortable with the way things were and not serious enough about
painful changes?
The
increasing inequality on the planet is confronted with the ideal of social
justice and the civil society with some sense of fairness. Reality is out of
joint with our institutions and ways of making choices. There is a growing
feeling that the current tribulations are bigger than our way of dealing with
global change and are greater than the passion for cooperation. In short
events are out of hand, we have lost control of the future, that events are
greater than our ability to plan and cope – it’s all to big and hard.
True
enough –
Visionary
leadership cannot in itself change a pattern of reaction, or over reaction to
proactive behavior and setting firm requirements to change the dynamics of
paradigm shifts. A shift from local, tribal, clan and family to national, from
national to international, from me to us, from ours vs. them to a more
universal feeling of humanity.Without
visionary leadership there is not a prayer people will shift their worldviews
on their own. The masses have to begin to understand they are not alone and
are interdependent on a new world order.
A
simple case is state department visas, INS, border patrol, customs, coast
guard, CIA, FBI, all with different computers and information, homeland
defense, bioterrorism, secure visas and tracking, security cards, air travel,
all around an issue of foreigners coming into America and doing us great
damage. We have 10 million illegal residence, mostly doing jobs local don't
want, how do we control our population. What we do has little to do with
making us safer but adds to confusion, uncertainty, delays, inconvenience,
loss of liberty, costs of doing business, and in counter productive - i.e.
harmful.
The
war in Afghanistan seems successful but threaten a increase in chaos, a war of
all against all, and even the period of Russian control was better - much
better - there was no famine, no free play of war lords, more real freedom,
more choice, so the whole effort since 1978 has been a disaster - only has
made things worse. Hard facts but true. We don't know what we are doing and
therefore do dumb things.
There is a growing
feeling that nation states are failed states not only Afghanistan and in
Africa but modern societies because they cannot cope with current demands for
safety, security and civil order. The torments of the shadows, the great game,
seem beyond understanding and becomes a dangerous mystery. Size and complexity
in themselves strain knowledge and a sense of security. It is just too hard
and difficult, too many alternatives and uncertain unanticipated consequences
for people to feel they have control of their lives, that ideology, theory,
social science, can give us hope it will be figured out and progress will be
made.
I think the last time the nation faced a real challenge:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade
and do the other things, not only because they are easy, but
because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and
measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one
that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one
which we intend to win, and the others, too
William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding
of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions
are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprise and
overcome with answerable courage.
If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that
man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be
deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or
not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which
expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the
race for space.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.
Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike,
that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in
this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud
of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing
of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to
which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge--and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we
pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do
in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do--for
we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
which are not limited in content
therefore is nonlinear and not fixed in time or space - Synergy Group can
signin to 100's of web sites using "wiredbrain" password "synergy" pflaump@cfpflaump@cfpflaump@cfpflaump@cfl.rr.comembers. Click
on
I hope what we have done so far has not
made things worse - maybe it has put them off balance but the long run is
full of danger -
so only a new world
vision will do - the only question in my mind is does it happen by
forethought - by planning and reason or is it jammed down our necks by force
and disasters.
Maybe not this week - or month - but a
world divided between the rich and technical, depended on complex and
fragile systems and the majority, uneducated, poor, angry, superstitious,
but with powerful low tech weapons - it is only a question of time before
one attacks the other in ways that can not be defended. The offence
by low tech against high tech is too great to over come with more high tech
defense.
“They”
really are not concerned with our way of life, they don’t care about the
morals or behavior of infidel on the other side of the ocean, but they feel
there is an active crusade of Christians into the lands of the prophet
motivated by the need for oil. The infidel, Christians and Jews, have invaded
their homeland and exploiting their resources. They want us out of Saudi
Arabia, as a primary focus; therefore the almost all of the attackers on 9/11
were from Arabia. The threat exists not in a single place but in the minds of
millions of Moslem people from New Jersey to Indonesia.
There are down sides to every action
including inaction.We need to
find that combination of policies to disrupt the ability of groups to operate
in Afghanistan and frightening other nations (Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia)
from providing covert assistance.
1.)Remove causes, removing troops in Arabia, support for a Palestinian
homeland
2.)Neutralize issues with our partners and improve propaganda
3.)Destroy most groups and their supporters,
4.)Control the flows of money, goods and people over borders,
5.)Prevent attacks through intelligence and proactive police methods,
6.)Making targets harder to attack, and
7.)Discovery of the criminals and catching them,
8.)Preparing for biological, chemical or other attacks,
9.)Responding and
10.)Recovery from events.
None
of there are likely to be seriously tried or if tried will not work. We can or
will not back off policies under threat. We are not good at the “community
of nations” and multilateralist. We can not deter terrorist of countries who
act in secret, we can not control borders, we do not have or do not know how
to build a good spy network, we can not defend the 100,001 targets – if one
place becomes difficult they will go elsewhere, we can not catch them, we are
not even at the beginning to prepare for homeland defense, our nation is not
prepared to withstand another serious attack or recover from it.
The core part of our strategy is the
military destruction of the Taliban and removes the sanctuaries of the
terrorist. But if this is the first phase type four war where there are no
territories held by the enemy.
Wars were fought hand to hand and on
horse back with command by voice until the modern age, modern wars were fought
with masses of soldiers and sailors using cannon, guns and great armies using
complex command structures until World War I, the last Wars were fought based
on oil used as fuel to run complex machines, tanks, mobile forces, airpower,
and commanded by radio over wide areas. Now we have the first of the wars
fought by electronic means, stealth, without clear enemy territory, remote
sensing, social psychological methods, special operations, police work, more
godfather.com than Rambo.
Popularity,
in politics, marketing in business, the selling of God: promises and threats
vs.
The
unpopular thoughts of the dismal science of economics, the skeptical sciences,
unpleasant facts and bad news are never popular.
More
and more people are beginning to realize that the decline of the age of
America will be due to the preference for the comfortable over the
serious and difficult.
Our public administrative inefficiency, territorial disputes, remind us of the
British labour unions before the current age. The only thing that keeps us, or
anyone else efficient is competition. The government is non-competitive and
shows all the faults of socialism or dogmatic unions, where job padding, log
rolling, and fixed positions, using silos of activity unrelated to the demand
structure, causes real problems in getting the job done.
Change
is rarely popular despite the slogan of new
and improved. The effects of money on
being popular and getting elected are compounding the problems of a
non-functional government. In times of crisis we really need a public sector
that works. Everyone is stymied and frustrated in getting programs to work –
who gets visas, who is in the country, how do we defend against terrorist, how
do we conduct age four information warfare, (phase one is men, horses and
swords as weapons until Napoleon, two is guns and cannon used in the civil
war, then machines, tanks, airplanes and mass armies from World War I) and as
the Secretary of defense has said how do we prevent the bureaucratic system
becoming the enemy of national security.
We
all want to be liked, loved and supported, and in politics, business as well
as social life we go along to get along. If we reflect the popular we will be
popular. To get elected or sell a product we must motivate people to believe
we are like them, we understand their feelings, we support what they support,
we reflect warm and comfy feeling, and they identify with us, as exciting,
sexy, strong, powerful, and authoritative, like Dr. Welby, M.D. (Robert Young)
or Henry Fonda, John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Steward, you know what I mean
– non-threatening, good guy, telling us what we want to hear.
And
every little child should have a pony – if elected I will see everyone has
their own pony and we will pick up the entire pony poop free of charge. If you
buy our product you will look like a movie star and never be constipated
again.
On the other hand there are the dismal realist, the doctor
with bad news, the economist asking what we want to do without and how to
balance the budget, pay our bills, get out of debt, or the doctor who tells us
to stop smoking, drink less or not at all, eat right, exercise, or the
preacher who tells us to be nice to people we can’t stand, and if we don’t
we are told we will get fat, die, go broke, go to hell, or other unpleasant
consequences of our bad behavior.These
messages we don’t want to hear and blame the messenger for being a party
pooper, a spoiler, a tootsie two shoes, or no fun at all.
Religion
wants to sell with the good news – you will get pie in the sky when you die
and you don’t have to be afraid of anything, God will take care of you, and
you get all these goodies for free. But there is a catch – if you don’t
buy into the product you go straight to hell, do not pass go or collect
$200.00.And how do you know if
you have faith? Are you for real? How do you know if you believe hard enough?
How do you know if you are good enough – because you know there is a little
faithlessness, a little sinfulness, a little sham behind every good intention.
So wave your arms in the air, shout and give money, time, effort in the
promise of everlasting deliverance, glory and peace or something like that.
The
true faith is a hard path; truth does not come out of the barrel of a gun or
from following the text, or public opinion polls, but from hard work,
inspiration, discussion, competition, exacting methods, examination,
confirmations, i.e. the scientist method.
Practical,
realistic Idealism:
The
only way I see of doing anything useful about 9-11 is an extreme form of
idealism – We need to work toward a global community with real standards
(such as exist within a civil society) a real global community – this is
going to be hard but is absolutely necessary. It will take a long time and
be very expensive, and may require real sacrifice, but there is no
alternative.
In
a civil society we do not settle issue with violence as a matter of doing
regular business (crime is crime and has a criminal justice system) and in
an interdependent global society we need to do the same.We must have Global systems of justice – commercial law, social
justice, participation, (open societies) and criminal justice – world
police, courts, laws and security. Nothing else will do. Normal nationalism
is a threat to our safety and survival. National welfare depends on global
welfare.
Some
form of global warfare, public health, with an international safety net –
costing trillions is required (and could be the stimulus the global economy
needs) – because a better off poor would be a market and able to afford
basic infrastructure. America and Europe have well off customers, the world
could have billions more.
Since
we don’t know how to do international assistance without corruption and
great waste – supports and privileges for private enterprise is critical
– plans that actually work and produce income and return on investments.
There are lots of these enterprises under free trade – We need
International venture capital, basic education (direct provision) banking,
and direct construction of roads, communications by private contractors,
while we work on getting civil society and working governments. Trusteeships
may be required in some places.
Around the world, the 11th of
September is bringing government and people to reflect, consider and change.
And in this process, amidst all the talk of war and action, there is another
dimension appearing, there is a coming together; the power of community is
asserting itself. We are realizing how fragile are our frontiers in the face
of the world's new challenges.
Today, conflicts rarely stay
within national boundaries. Today, a tremor in one financial market is
repeated in the markets of the world. Today, confidence is global; it's
presence or its absence. Today, the threat is chaos, because for people with
work to do and family life to balance and mortgages to pay and careers to
further pensions to provide, the yearning is for order and stability. And if
it doesn't exist elsewhere, it's unlikely to exist here.
I have long believed that this
interdependence defines the new world we live in.
The critics will say, ``But how
can the world be a community, nations act in their own self-interest.'' Of
course, they do, but what is the lesson of the financial markets, climate
change, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation or world trade? It is
that our self-interest and our mutual interest are today inextricably woven
together.
This is the politics of
globalization. And I realize why people protest against globalization. We
watch aspects of it with trepidation, we feel powerless as if we were pushed
to and fro by forces far beyond our control. But there is a risk. The
political leaders, faced with street demonstrations, pander to the argument
rather than answer it. The demonstrators are right to say, ``There is
injustice, poverty, environmental degradation.''
But globalization is a fact,
and, by and large, it is driven by people not just in finance, but in
communication, in technology, increasingly in culture and recreation, in the
world of the Internet, information technology, television. There's going to
be globalization. And in trade, frankly, the problem is not there's too much
of it. On the contrary, there's too little of it.
The issue is not how to stop
globalization; the issue is how we use the power of community to combine
globalization with justice. If globalization works only for the benefit of
the few, then it will fail and it will deserve to fail.
But if we follow the principles
that have served us here so well at home--that power, wealth and opportunity
must be in the hands of the many, not the few--if we make that our guiding
light for the global economy, then it will be a force for good and an
international movement we should take pride in leading.
Castro
part II - I agree - It is the hard reality:
A lesson can be
drawn from that: none of the problems affecting today’s world can be
solved with the use of force, there is no global, technological or military
power that can guarantee total immunity against such acts, because they can
be organized by small groups, difficult to detect, and what is more
complicated, carried out by suicidal people.
Therefore, the
general effort of the international community must be to put an end to a
number of conflicts affecting the world, at least in this area. It is
indispensable to put an end to world terrorism (APPLAUSE) and build a
worldwide awareness against terrorism. It is not a country of bigots.
Here, it is not fanaticism that has been cultivated but ideas, convictions
and principles.
I reiterate that
none of the world problems –not even terrorism-- can be solved with the
use of force, and every act of force, every imprudent action that entails
the use of force anywhere would seriously aggravate the world problems.
The United States
is the country most vulnerable to terrorism.
It is the country with the most planes, with the greatest dependence on
technical resources, electrical power grids, gas pipelines, and so on. Many
of the people in these groups are fascists who do not mind killing. Mentally
speaking, they must be closer to insanity than to a balanced intelligence.
We have told the U.S. authorities that these methods should not be
publicized, because they are easy to use and a danger for them.
The way is neither
the use of force nor the war. intelligent policy based on the strength of
consensus and the support of the international public opinion that such a
predicament could definitely be solved. I think this unexpected episode must
be used to undertake an international struggle against terrorism. However,
this international struggle against terrorism cannot succeed by killing a
terrorist here and another one there, that is, by using similar methods to
theirs, sacrificing innocent lives. It
is resolved, inter alia, by putting an end to State terrorism and other
repulsive crimes (APPLAUSE), by putting an end to genocide and by honestly
pursuing a policy of peace and respect for unavoidable moral and legal
standards. The world cannot be saved unless a path of international peace
and cooperation is pursued.
What will happen tomorrow that effects your life today ????
I agree, the issue is Iraq - (the Al-Qaida is a front or junior partner)
and the contents of the Anthrax is secondary. It is clear to me that it most
likely is from there BUT that doesn't mean "they" did it - and if
they did - they have motive, means and opportunity (but why would they use
stuff with their finger prints all over it) THEN WHAT? (The notes enclosed
in the stuff look very much like misdirection -)
We act as if we can do anything we want in the world without serious
consequences. We act with false pride that victory is certain (just as it
was in Vietnam) and we will have our way, protect our commercial political
and social way of life, have cheap oil forever, have Israel as our 51
state, etc. etc. forever and ever without pain, without sacrifice, without
basic change -
We don't want "the bomb them" drums being beaten - by the war
hawks - if that only makes life more dangerous and more difficult. The
first causality of war is the truth for good reason. What a mess - we need a
declaration of emergency powers, we need a supreme commander allied forces
against terror SCAF - General Colin Powell, world wide with a deputy for the
homeland "Gov. Ridge" FBI, DEA, Customs, INS, Coast Guard,
immigration, and for foreign operations "D.O.D." CIA et al but the
two are completely entangled - national interests and global interests -
defense and proactive covert activity, prevention, protection, response and
recovery.
If we have a war and we do we need to be organized for war and we are not
even close. The SCAF can command wherever, what ever, domestic,
military and foreign to do what is necessity.
The theory is out there but the practice is hard - change is hard - new
realities are hard - war is hard - life will be hard -
It has been said, and it maybe right, that the administration
reflects in all it's complexity the character of the president. GOOD GRIEF -
bluff only goes so far - this is one of the most intellectually challenging
issues in all of human history - really it is because of the sensitivity of
high technology civilization to barbarians at the gates or inside the
systems - we do, they do, whose move - then what? You have to plan ahead -
and be ready for quick changes - good grief - we are the supertanker running
up on the reef - no one in command and the crew running around waving their
hands in the air.
Subject: RE: bentonite: does it or doesn't it - Jaws -the true story
I’ve
been thinking for two weeks that we will never know who is behind the
anthrax.All we will know is
whether or not the Administration decides to bomb Iraq.That they are doing everything possible right now to point away
from Iraq says I was right, that they have not yet decided, and that they
want to keep their options open.Call
me a cynic.
-----Original
Message----- From: Peter Pflaum [mailto:pflpflpflpflaump@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Saturday, October 27,
2001 8:48 AM To: synergynet@eGroups.com Subject: bentonite: does it
or doesn't it - Jaws -the true story
bentonite:
does it or doesn't it?
As
far as is known, only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce
biological weapons.
Just
minutes before ABCNEWS' World News
Tonight aired this report, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
flatly denied bentonite was found on the letters. Moments later, another
senior White House official backed off Fleischer's comments, saying it
does not appear to be bentonite "at this point."
Koplan
speculated that there may have been multiple mailings and that "there
may be several places within the federal government that have been deemed
targets."
William
C. Patrick, who is retired from the U.S. Army installation at Fort
Detrick, Md., said extensive studies show that once anthrax spores hit the
ground or other surfaces they stick, and are very hard to
"re-aerosolize.
There's
a theoretical possibility that a few spores picked up by an envelope might
cause a skin anthrax infection, but a case of inhalational anthrax
"is highly unlikely," Patrick said.
FBI
and CIA Suspect Domestic Extremists
Officials
Doubt Any Links to Bin Laden
Gov.
Ridge has a tough week - It
is not going well - Winter is coming fast - Is there another "big
one" out there ? More glass in the water than sharks?
.
In fact no one could ever remember any other attacks in the past. The
local towns were worried that the publicity might scare away the summer
tourists and asked for some official action. The mayor of Spring Lake
organized for a boat to patrol the area for sharks. This boat dragged
lumps of meat through the water while men stood on board with rifles
waiting for a shark to come to the surface. No shark ever did.
Incredibly,
the shark experts of the period also helped calm any fears by announcing
that a shark was very unlikely to ever attack a swimmer and in any case
its jaws were not powerful enough to ever bite through a human leg bone.
By
now the town was going berserk. All the dynamite in the town had been
purchased within hours and continuous explosions were heard right along
the creek. They also used shotguns and rifles to pump ammunition into the
creek. Newspaper reporters descended on the town. Everyone thought they
saw shadows and the townspeople were right over the edge.
Soon
after, the US cabinet met in Washington and much of the agenda was about
the shark problem. President Wilson instructed the Coast Guard to use
every means to drive the sharks away or kill them. The resorts in the area
then issued a statement blaming the media for scaring people away with
shark stories. They estimated they had lost more than one million dollars
because of the sharks. The statement then went on to say that there were
no more sharks in the area than any other summer.
Wiredbrain Future new news and private research service by GlobalVillages
provides research on and the future ???
Don't be blind to what others are doing and what they know about what you
are up to AT FROM: www.multicrawl.com
for synergy site: use wiredbrain and "any topic"
Individual development, organizational
change, and In the computer industry, power comes not from the barrel of
a gun but from the interface of a
Protocol:
He who controls the
interface controls the system.
Iraq
and Bin Laden have the same goal - to drive us out of the gulf and grasp the
oil then hang us out to dry. Iran could not do this directly because they have
territory and targets, which are subject to our "black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail)" of
retaliation - so they make a deal - The Al-Qaida takes the heat - is a target
but has no homeland or structure to attack and Iraq provides resources for
asymmetric warfare.
I don't know when we (the public) will
notice that this is not a fight between good and evil, civilizations us and
them, but is about OIL - they want to black-mail (anthrax means black carbuncle, malignant pustule - sent in the mail) us - We took Kuwait (al-Sabah
dynasty with 10% of the world's oil) back but they haven't given up and have
their eye on Saudi and the gulf states - with the reserves in central Asia
they would own 75% of OIL and then what? They need to sell it to us but at
much higher prices. It would force us to look at alternatives (which we should
do anyway) and conserve. Who really is cut out are the kings and oil
people who have an unusual amount of money
and power.
I thought so - the number of people
affected (30 or so) suggested a "weapons grade" or high grade or
professional and sophisticated state sponsored attack
- different from Florida and New York - as Sen. Daschle and Li
eberman
said at the time. Then some officers from the military (Fort
Detrick in Frederick or Ft. Mead) said it was just plain old garden
variety anthrax - Was this an intentional misinformation or are they just
incompetent ? I don't believe it is just a question of technical terms.
Why is this so important - because
if it is then it is more likely it is retaliation for US foreign policy
(Oil, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Palestine) - We go on acting as if we can do
anything we want in the world without consequences. We are tied at the hip
to Israel, we maintain the government in Egypt, we have troops in the Gulf,
we bomb and embargo Iraq, we make people mad and there are serious
consequences on lives, stability, economics, and politics at home. We
cannot carry on a war in Afghanistan when we cannot control domestic
terrorism.
The public will just not support it. In
1965 all the experts, Sect. of State, Defense Sect., National Security
people, (Except George Ball) were certain we would win in Vietnam - talked
about what government we wanted for their country. The same group (different
actors) seems certain again - they were wrong then and are wrong now - the
domestic and foreign damage done by mistakes then will be repeated in spades
now. Both errors is due to hubris (false pride) - false assumptions, not
understanding or even caring about the enemy, a amost religious belief in
superior technology to defeat a primative people, underestimating the
determination of the other side, dishonesty, lies, and the loss of public
support.
Nonetheless, the conclusion that the spores
were produced with military quality differs considerably from public
comments made recently by officials close to the investigation, who have
said the spores were not "weaponized" and were "garden
variety." Those descriptions may be technically true, depending on how
one defines those terms, several experts said. But they obscure the basic
and more important truth that the spores were treated with a sophisticated
process, meaning the original source was almost certainly a state-sponsored
laboratory.
That particle size, 1 1/2 to 3 microns in
diameter, said Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), is extremely small -- a first
requirement for making "weapons grade" anthrax spores for warfare
or terrorism.
But more than that is needed to get anthrax
spores to drift easily in the air and spread widely without settling quickly
to the ground. That is because tiny particles tend to have electrostatic
charges -- the static electricity that can cause hair to extend skyward when
it is rubbed against a balloon. Those charges make the tiniest particles
clump together into heavier ones, which then settle to the ground.
One of the primary goals of bioweapons
engineers since the 1960s was to figure out how to treat those tiny
particles in ways that would neutralize the problematic charges. Properly
processed, the tiny particles will remain separated from one another and fly
up and outward with virtually no effort. An imperceptible wisp of a breeze
can send them across a room.
In the United States, that problem was
solved by Bill Patrick, who developed the process at Fort Detrick as part of
the U.S. biological weapons program that ended in 1969. The process is
protected by at least five secret patents held by Patrick. It involved
freeze drying and chemical processing and was achieved without having to
grow vast quantities of spores or mill them to terribly small dimensions,
Patrick and other experts said.
The anthrax spores that contaminated the air
in Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle's office had been treated with a
chemical additive so sophisticated that only three nations are thought to
have been capable of making it, sources said yesterday.
The United States, the former Soviet Union
and Iraq are the only three nations known to have developed the kind of
additives that enable anthrax spores to remain suspended in the air, making
them more easily inhaled and therefore more deadly, experts said yesterday.
Each nation used a different technique, suggesting that ongoing microscopic
and chemical analyses may reveal more about the spores' provenance than did
their genetic analysis, which is largely complete but reportedly has done
little to narrow the field.
'We can't do it by
bombing'
'We can't do it by
bombing'
Are aerial attacks on Afghanistan really going to defeat global terrorism?
Or, as one general puts it, are we just turning 'big bits of rubble into small
bits'. Jonathan Freedland asks the experts
Friday October 19, 2001 The Guardian
The same conversation can
probably be heard around a million kitchen tables, from London to New York,
Paris to Delhi. In the pubs of Manchester or the cafes of Moscow, regular folk
are grappling with the same question: what can we do to make the world a safer
place?
And, just for once, the
leaders are no different from the led. The world's politicians, military
chiefs, diplomats and analysts admit to being in the same hole - as unsure of
the answer as the rest of us. Speak to some of Britain's most respected men of
war and they'll confess they are foxed by this strange, unprecedented
conflict. They, too, don't know whether the current plan will work - or what
should take its place.
But press harder and some
smart thinking soon emerges; the first outlines of a game-plan that might not
eradicate global terror but could, at least, protect us from it a little
better. Few of their ideas could be implemented tomorrow, but they do offer a
potential route map out of the current state of fear.
Each conversation starts
with the situation we are in now - with not a single voice giving the current
strategy an unqualified endorsement. "We can't do it through
bombing," says Paddy Ashdown, former special forces soldier and Liberal
Democrat leader, "any more than we could do Kosovo through bombing."
One former and highly decorated general, reluctant to be named, confesses he
finds the aerial bombardment of an already-benighted land like Afghanistan a
little "strange". He fears we are "turning big bits of rubble
into small bits of rubble".
Still, these men are not
about to join John Pilger and Bruce Kent in the Stop the War campaign. For
them, the bombing is an unhappy necessity, a painful step on the way to
stopping Osama bin Laden and any more September 11s. Here's how they think the
bombing can help.
First, it serves as
revenge for the crimes in New York and Washington. That's needed not only to
make Americans feel better but to prevent another outrage - and another after
that. Leaving those 6,000 deaths unavenged would be an invitation, says former
diplomat and Conservative minister George Walden, for the al-Qaida network to
strike again. "We can't say we're too scared to implement justice. If we
do, a lot more people will die."
The air strikes serve a
basic military function, too. Like it or not, al-Qaida's headquarters are in
Afghanistan and though the network has spread, the "source of the
cancer," says Ashdown, is there. "The place where you attack
guerrillas is in their bases, that's where they're visible." One former
SAS man adds that the bombing will, at the very least, be forcing Bin Laden
and his men on the move - making them vulnerable.
Walden believes the air
war is serving another, less direct purpose. The fact that it is highly
visible - "a fireworks display" - serves as a warning to other
states that might be harbouring terrorists. The ex-minister imagines the likes
of Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and Muammar Gadafy in Tripoli summoning their
intelligence chiefs, demanding to know if they have been giving aid or shelter
to their own Bin Ladens and, if they have, to rub them out. They will be
acting not from an altruistic desire to fight terrorism, but to save their own
skin: they do not want the US air force pounding their military bases. A
similar dynamic may even be at work in Afghanistan itself, as a Taliban
regime, desperate to stop the bombing, arranges for Bin Laden to be quietly
murdered, Mafia-style, in his bed. In other words, the air war may prompt the
Muslim world to do the kind of "housecleaning" the west needs, but
cannot do.
What else can be done?
There is little enthusiasm for sending in special forces on the ground.
Commando raids in the dead of night may have a storybook appeal - and they
would certainly do less to antagonise global Muslim opinion than the current
fireworks display - but they are far too risky in the absence of first-class
intelligence, says one man who knows from experience. There is no point
sending in the SAS to get Bin Laden unless they first know exactly where he
is.
Besides, the killers who
boarded those planes on September 11, like the senders of those Anthraxgrams,
were not in Afghanistan at all. What military action can be taken against the
likes of them? Dan Plesch, the highly rated analyst at the Royal United
Services Institute, can envisage a revival of "covert operations",
the stealth, rule-bending activities that were once the stock-in-trade of US
intelligence. He quotes the military official who told him: "This new war
is not Rambo, it's The Godfather."
An air offensive on a
distant country is not going to defeat a language student in Hamburg with
suicidal dreams of hijacking a passenger jet. All that could stop him would be
a Corleone-style execution. But Plesch treads warily in such terrain,
recalling the CIA's grim covert record in Latin America: "We have to know
what we're getting into here." Others share his concern, fearful that a
policy of assassination only "turns back to infect the society which
allows it".
Still, the very fact that
this debate is under way reveals the fundamental conundrum military
strategists have faced since September 11. Their armies - with all their
planes, tanks and ships - are designed for fighting other armies, attached to
states. Yet the new enemy does not wear a uniform and belongs to no state; it
lives in 60 countries and its troops are civilians who can use Stanley knives
to bring a superpower to its knees. Surely to confront this enemy with B52s
and Cruise missiles is as ludicrous as sending cavalry horses in to defeat
tanks?
That's what Martin van
Creveld has been saying for more than a decade. A Dutch-born military
historian at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, he has lectured at army
colleges around the world, warning of this seismic shift in warfare.
"They listened to my lectures and they would always say, 'What an
interesting idea' - and then do nothing." Now they are listening. His
1991 book, Transformation of War, is the set text of the hour.
"The mightiest
military machine in the world is just not suitable for this war," he
says. The Americans have the most sophisticated hardware imaginable, but the
missing ingredient is human intelligence. "A satellite picture can show
you the finest detail, but it cannot tell you who is under that keffiyeh."
The US will now have to
master a field in which it has long been backward. No longer can the CIA have
a lead expert on the Iraqi army unable to speak Arabic (Van Creveld met such a
man). They will have to infiltrate hostile movements and learn to understand
them. Generals will have to let go of their toys - the tanks and planes - and
take on what Van Creveld calls "policework". It will mean a whole
new kind of army: one that does not wear khaki or live on bases, but comes
dressed in plain clothes and lives incognito, among us. "You can counter
terrorists only by following their methods," he says.
Still, "soft
security" will not replace the old-fashioned kind altogether. There will
also be a need for special units, able to pursue targets with great precision.
And the west should be braced for a dramatic change in day-to-day security. As
Van Creveld puts it drily: "The doors to the cockpit will have to be
locked."
Nor can the war on terror
end there. The true defence against Bin Laden and his ilk, say the experts,
will not be military, but political and diplomatic. Here the strategic brains
are fizzing with ideas, starting with the future of Afghanistan itself. Few
believe a western-imposed government can work, nor one that is dominated
either by the northern Tajiks or the southern Pashtuns: that would merely
invite a new civil war. The talk now is of a UN protectorate or trusteeship,
allowing the international community to rebuild that broken country. Plesch
nominates the Muslim states of Tunisia, Bangladesh and Morocco as possible
trustees, while the UNHCR would deliver a massive aid programme.
He also wants to see a
serious, draconian regime of UN inspectors with the power to find and root out
weapons of mass destruction wherever they are. Countries would have to reveal
any biological or chemical weapons - or face the full, armed wrath of the
international community. More widely, there has to be a new regulation of
"global space" - the realm of the internet, banking system and
satellite technology - which Paddy Ashdown says has become " as lawless
as Afghanistan". Like many, he wants the US to drop its go-it-alone
stance and work with others. To fight what is a global threat, the world's
nations are going to have to act globally.
Above all, they agree, the
conditions which breed terrorism will have to be transformed. Revealingly, it
is the former general who rattles off the list: "Poverty, disease,
unfairness, lack of democracy..." Those who have food, security and
prospects will not want to kill or be killed, he says. The US will have to
demand Israel ends its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza but the Arab and
Muslim world will have to change, too. Too many of those states are
"rubbishy, crummy" places, Walden says, which have thwarted their
own peoples for too long. Plesch believes the west could help by weaning
itself off oil, using renewable energies instead, so breaking its dependency
on the region.
None of these will be
quick or easy solutions; most could take decades. But there is some comfort in
knowing that it's not just you: the people in power are searching for answers,
too.
... part of their future warfighting concept called "Sea ... 28. Martin Van Creveld, The ... 46. Van Creveld, The Transformation of War, 108. 47. Daniel J ...
Found by: AltaVista, Yahoo! http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/books/essa/essaccdn.html |
78% |
Translate
CYBERWAR IS COMING! John Arquilla and David RonfeldtInternational Policy Department RAND Copyright 1993 TaylorFrancis ISSN 0149-5933/93 This article is copyrighted 1993by Taylor Francis, 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA19007, 1-800-821-8312. It...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com), Yahoo! http://www.stl.nps.navy.mil/c4i/cyberwar.html |
72% |
Translate
... Martin van Creveld ... 1990); The Transformation of War ... Spanish. Professor van Creveld was a ... Department of War Studies, King's ... Chair of Warfighting at the ...
Found by: Yahoo! http://www.rug.nl/cis/sgg/archief 1999/creveld.htm |
70% |
Translate
Our original point of departure was the notion thatforeseeable advances in sensor technologies and informationsystems may (or will) enable the side exploiting them moreeffectively to eliminate its "fog of war" whileturning the opponent's into a "wall...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com), Yahoo! http://clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/Watts2/Chapter11.htm |
69% |
Translate
VIETNAM, "WARS OF THE THIRD KIND" AND. AIR FORCE DOCTRINE. by. Dennis M. Drew. This essay explores the impact of America's war in Southeast Asia on...
Found by: AltaVista http://www.ttu.edu/~vietnam/96papers/vietsymp.htm |
63% |
Translate
Can Russia experience the revolution in military affairs(RMA) and reemerge as a premier military power? Four reasonsjustify asking this question. First, it only took NaziGermany and Stalinist Russia fifteen years to move frombeing unimportant military...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/bls02/ |
60% |
Translate
e-Prints. Executive Summary. Title: Waging Peace: The Non-Lethal Application of Aerospace Power. Author: Major Gregory P. Cook, USAF. 22 May 1995....
Found by: AltaVista, FAST Search (alltheweb.com), Yahoo! http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/cook.htm |
58% |
Translate
Fourth Generation Warfare ceased being an abstract concepton September 11 with the attack on the World Trade Centerand the Pentagon and what may have been an attempted attackon the White House or the Capital. As is usually the case,the talking heads...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.d-n-i.net/FCS_Folder/comments/c427.htm |
57% |
Translate
Something happened in Desert Storm never witnessed before.Air power in thousands and thousands of Coalitionsortiesappeared to have defeated an enemy. Advocates of airpower earnestly want others to accept what they believeDesert Storm proved. Desert...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com), Yahoo! http://www.enigma.eccosys.org/battlefield/chapter_04.html |
53% |
Translate
Something happened in Desert Storm never witnessed before.Air power in thousands and thousands of Coalitionsortiesappeared to have defeated an enemy. Advocates of airpower earnestly want others to accept what they believeDesert Storm proved. Desert...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://home.swbell.net/kkmartin/battle4.htm |
47% |
Translate
... values associated with warfighting and war-winning ... message in Martin van Creveld's study, The Transformation of War. 18 According to ...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com), Yahoo! http://idun.itsc.adfa.edu.au/ADSC/wp58/wp58lwd1.html |
46% |
Translate
The RMA Debate -- articles and links aboutthe
Revolution in Military Affairs, information war, and asymmetric warfare.
Gateway to US defensemodernization debate.
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/reflect.html |
44% |
Translate
The United States must remain prepared for war, but not oneunderstood by traditional perceptions of security. Thecenturies-old idea of "a struggle between nation-statesor their coalitions over the preservation and extension ofnational sovereignty" is...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.infowar.com/mil_c4i/mil_c4i_100497a.html-ssi |
40% |
Translate
One very important reason for disliking a weapon was, ofcourse, because it was new. A weapon might or might not beeffective, but whenever one was introduced it alwaysthreatened to upset traditional ideas as to how war shouldbe waged, and, indeed, what...
Found by: AltaVista, FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.ndu.edu/inss/siws/ch2.html |
40% |
Translate
... military skills to warfighting and to peacekeeping ... Van Creveld, Martin. "High Technology and the Transformation of War - Part I." RUSI ...
Found by: Yahoo! http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/irc/amsc/amsc1/008.html |
38% |
Translate
... exploiting technology to improve warfighting must be expanded ... p. 21; and Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War, New York: Free ...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com), Yahoo! http://www.milnet.com/milnet/mil97/emap6.htm |
33% |
Translate
This is a commentary by Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D., Professor,Department of Political Science, Purdue University. Helectures and publishes widely on Israeli strategic matters.
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/beres/june13-01.htm |
31% |
Translate
Essay on Strategy XIV. NOTES. 1. In War and Anti-War, Alvin and Heidi Toffler describe the differences among agrarian, industrial, and information...
Found by: AltaVista http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/essa/essaccdn.html |
27% |
Translate
This paper was written by a student attending the CanadianForces College in fulfillment of one of the communicationskills requirements of the Course of Studies. It ispresented in the language in which it was written. The paperis a scholastic document...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/papers/amsc2/corrigan2f.html |
27% |
Translate
Those who place hope in outside protection for Israel,primarily from the U.S., assume - more or less - acontinuation of traditional international relations. Yet, itis altogether likely that we live in an era of totalfragmentation and disunity, a...
Found by: FAST Search (alltheweb.com) http://www.anabaptistsinisrael.com/archive2001_jan2jun/informed_thoughts.htm |
21% |
Translate
