“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”Frank Herbert, Dune
Showing posts with label Realpolitik. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Realpolitik. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Thought For The Day
Sunday, January 10, 2021
Whatever it was...
..it wasn't a coup.
Not even an attempted coup.
Mises Wire: The Capitol Riot Wasn’t a Coup. It Wasn't Even Close.
What Is a Coup?
A gang of disorganized, powerless mechanics, janitors, and insurance agents running through the Capitol isn’t a coup. And if it was a coup attempt, it was so far from anything that might hope to succeed as a coup that it should not be taken seriously as such.
So how do we know a coup when we see one?
In their article “Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset,” authors Jonathan M. Powell and Clayton L. Thyne provide a definition:
A coup attempt includes illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive.There are two key components of this definition. The first is that it is illegal. Powell and Thyne note that this “illegal” qualifier is important to include "because it differentiates coups from political pressure, which is common whenever people have freedom to organize."
In other words, protests, or threats of protest don’t count as coups. Neither do legal efforts such as a vote of no confidence or an impeachment.
But an even more critical aspect of Powell and Thyne’s definition is that it requires the involvement of elites.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Friday, October 12, 2018
Hammy Stuff
Procrastination -- it's been a month since I posted, and I haven't even been out of town! -- results in multiple posts, some of them short, being consolidated.
Part of the procrastination is due to disgust with The National Scene, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo. Part of it is laziness and inertia, part waiting to see what will happen...
Anyway. The 98-Double-Ought-3 Amateur Radio Club celebrated its 20th Anniversary yesterday. Yay, us!🎆🎉 Yes, there was cake and ice cream. 🎂🍨
Now, there are bigger and older clubs out there; Western Washington is pretty "radio-active", so to speak. The Radio Club of Tacoma is over a hundred years old, and the club "radio shack" -- yes, hams really do use that term -- is an actual house that the club purchased 50 or 60 years ago. Which is pretty cool, and yes, there is a certain amount of envy there. But. It isn't our club, and it doesn't really serve our needs.
Speaking of which...
Part of the procrastination is due to disgust with The National Scene, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo. Part of it is laziness and inertia, part waiting to see what will happen...
Anyway. The 98-Double-Ought-3 Amateur Radio Club celebrated its 20th Anniversary yesterday. Yay, us!🎆🎉 Yes, there was cake and ice cream. 🎂🍨
Speaking of which...
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Readers Notes -- Geography is Destiny
In comments to my previous notes I mentioned that reader Arthur's comments provided me with a segue to my next post. Which this is.
I believe I saw Tim Marshall's book Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World (Amazon link) linked in an Instapundit post.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that has studied military tactics that geography has a controlling factor on what you do, and how you do it. It therefore follows that geography has an impact on your application of Operational Art, and of your strategy, not to mention of what used to be referred to a your "Grand Strategy", but in this less-poetically inclined age we simply refer to as "Foreign Policy"; in other words, "geo-politics" is more than just a word.
British journalist Tim Marshall attempts in this book to lay out the geographic causes behind how nations have developed, and fallen. As the sub-title says, he lays out 10 maps of significant nations or regions to be studied, one chapter each. This analysis addresses current issues in international geopolitics as well as "how we got here."
He starts with China, then moves on to Russia and the USA; he then looks at regions: Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, the Indian sub-continent, northeast Asia, and finally, the Arctic.
He describes, for example, how geography (including climate, topography and hydrology) impacted the development of Mexico as contrasted to the United States.
There are few earth-shattering (heh) revelations here for the student of history, especially of military history, at least, not when examining well-studied eras and campaigns. But few westerners have an appreciation of how, for example, African geography constrained the development of civilizations and societies beyond the tribal/village level, and even now prevents most nations there from taking full advantage of the potential available to them.
So I believe that this book will have some useful information to anyone, and might serve as a primer for students with an interest in why nations make the decisions they do, but it is far from an in-depth study.
I will note, on the other hand, that at a certain level it is typical of books that address current events in that in only 3 years, some (much?) of the commentary is already obsolete. For example, he mentions that Obama's Iran deal has dissolved fears of an Iranian nuclear attack.
On the gripping hand, I did see some examples where the author's reasoning was a bit, well, facile. As an American, I am used to the subtle sneers and jibes of Europeans who shrug off anything we do in a sort of "Well, you know, Americans. AmIright?" way. But Marshal spends a lot of time explaining why Mexico did not grow into the socio-economic powerhouse that the USA did, implying that the United States sort of fell into the jackpot, easily and undeservedly, while poor Mexico got stuck with the North American booby prize.
But the only reason Mexico did not inherit an empire that covered all of North America is that the Spanish Empire's interest in the New World was primarily as a source for the gold that would allow Spain to conquer and maintain a European empire: All that gold was pissed away in the Netherlands, the English Channel, and Italy.
Consider an alternate universe, where Spain saw the Great Plains as an opportunity for colonization for more than just extractive reasons. Where Spanish trappers paid Native Americans for furs, instead of complaining impotently while gringos took them directly, trapping the mountains almost bare of beaver in the process. Where instead of inviting American settlement in Texas as a buffer between Mexico and Comancheria, Spain found loyal subjects who would take on that challenge. But Spain didn't find any subjects who were interested in settling on the frontier, they were interested either in milking the New World for all they could get, or in converting the natives -- and it is questionable just how serious they were about saving native souls.
Whereas Americans were not just interested in settling on the frontier, they were downright insistent that they had a right to and would do so even when their own government said they didn't and couldn't. And, oh by the way, it wasn't all that easy. Europeans, amiright?
In other words, while geography shapes strategy and policy, so does culture. Geography also has an impact on culture, but culture has an impact beyond just "a people who arise in such-and-such terrain will be characterized thus-and-so."
Having spotted these issues in the chapter on the United States, I couldn't help wonder if I was missing similar issues in the other chapters.
Mind you, I'm not saying it ruined the book for me; far from it. The analyses of how geography has and will continue to impact national-level policy and strategy were, IMHO, spot on.
So this book is recommended, just be prepared for an occasional jolt as you think "Did he really write that?" or "THAT statement didn't age well!"
Here is the Amazon blurb:
I believe I saw Tim Marshall's book Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps That Explain Everything About the World (Amazon link) linked in an Instapundit post.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that has studied military tactics that geography has a controlling factor on what you do, and how you do it. It therefore follows that geography has an impact on your application of Operational Art, and of your strategy, not to mention of what used to be referred to a your "Grand Strategy", but in this less-poetically inclined age we simply refer to as "Foreign Policy"; in other words, "geo-politics" is more than just a word.
British journalist Tim Marshall attempts in this book to lay out the geographic causes behind how nations have developed, and fallen. As the sub-title says, he lays out 10 maps of significant nations or regions to be studied, one chapter each. This analysis addresses current issues in international geopolitics as well as "how we got here."
He starts with China, then moves on to Russia and the USA; he then looks at regions: Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South America, the Indian sub-continent, northeast Asia, and finally, the Arctic.
He describes, for example, how geography (including climate, topography and hydrology) impacted the development of Mexico as contrasted to the United States.
There are few earth-shattering (heh) revelations here for the student of history, especially of military history, at least, not when examining well-studied eras and campaigns. But few westerners have an appreciation of how, for example, African geography constrained the development of civilizations and societies beyond the tribal/village level, and even now prevents most nations there from taking full advantage of the potential available to them.
So I believe that this book will have some useful information to anyone, and might serve as a primer for students with an interest in why nations make the decisions they do, but it is far from an in-depth study.
I will note, on the other hand, that at a certain level it is typical of books that address current events in that in only 3 years, some (much?) of the commentary is already obsolete. For example, he mentions that Obama's Iran deal has dissolved fears of an Iranian nuclear attack.
On the gripping hand, I did see some examples where the author's reasoning was a bit, well, facile. As an American, I am used to the subtle sneers and jibes of Europeans who shrug off anything we do in a sort of "Well, you know, Americans. AmIright?" way. But Marshal spends a lot of time explaining why Mexico did not grow into the socio-economic powerhouse that the USA did, implying that the United States sort of fell into the jackpot, easily and undeservedly, while poor Mexico got stuck with the North American booby prize.
But the only reason Mexico did not inherit an empire that covered all of North America is that the Spanish Empire's interest in the New World was primarily as a source for the gold that would allow Spain to conquer and maintain a European empire: All that gold was pissed away in the Netherlands, the English Channel, and Italy.
Consider an alternate universe, where Spain saw the Great Plains as an opportunity for colonization for more than just extractive reasons. Where Spanish trappers paid Native Americans for furs, instead of complaining impotently while gringos took them directly, trapping the mountains almost bare of beaver in the process. Where instead of inviting American settlement in Texas as a buffer between Mexico and Comancheria, Spain found loyal subjects who would take on that challenge. But Spain didn't find any subjects who were interested in settling on the frontier, they were interested either in milking the New World for all they could get, or in converting the natives -- and it is questionable just how serious they were about saving native souls.
Whereas Americans were not just interested in settling on the frontier, they were downright insistent that they had a right to and would do so even when their own government said they didn't and couldn't. And, oh by the way, it wasn't all that easy. Europeans, amiright?
In other words, while geography shapes strategy and policy, so does culture. Geography also has an impact on culture, but culture has an impact beyond just "a people who arise in such-and-such terrain will be characterized thus-and-so."
Having spotted these issues in the chapter on the United States, I couldn't help wonder if I was missing similar issues in the other chapters.
Mind you, I'm not saying it ruined the book for me; far from it. The analyses of how geography has and will continue to impact national-level policy and strategy were, IMHO, spot on.
So this book is recommended, just be prepared for an occasional jolt as you think "Did he really write that?" or "THAT statement didn't age well!"
Here is the Amazon blurb:
Maps have a mysterious hold over us. Whether ancient, crumbling parchments or generated by Google, maps tell us things we want to know, not only about our current location or where we are going but about the world in general. And yet, when it comes to geo-politics, much of what we are told is generated by analysts and other experts who have neglected to refer to a map of the place in question.
All leaders of nations are constrained by geography. In “one of the best books about geopolitics” (The Evening Standard), now updated to include 2016 geopolitical developments, journalist Tim Marshall examines Russia, China, the US, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Japan, Korea, and Greenland and the Arctic—their weather, seas, mountains, rivers, deserts, and borders—to provide a context often missing from our political reportage: how the physical characteristics of these countries affect their strengths and vulnerabilities and the decisions made by their leaders.
Offering “a fresh way of looking at maps” (The New York Times Book Review), Marshall explains the complex geo-political strategies that shape the globe. Why is Putin so obsessed with Crimea? Why was the US destined to become a global superpower? Why does China’s power base continue to expand? Why is Tibet destined to lose its autonomy? Why will Europe never be united? The answers are geographical. “In an ever more complex, chaotic, and interlinked world, Prisoners of Geography is a concise and useful primer on geopolitics” (Newsweek) and a critical guide to one of the major determining factors in world affairs.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Interesting, re: Syria Strikes
The Aviationist » Everything We Know (And No One Has Said So Far) About The First Waves Of Air Strikes On Syria.
Basically, a rundown on the aerial order of battle, assembled from Open Sources (AKA OSINT, Open Source Intelligence.)
Don't read the comments, unless you feel an urge to do verbal battle with Putin's minions.
Also: The Aviationist » Russia Claims 71 Out Of 105 Cruise Missiles Downed In Yesteday’s Air Strikes. None Were Shot Down According to The US.
In which, note the following sentence:
Basically, a rundown on the aerial order of battle, assembled from Open Sources (AKA OSINT, Open Source Intelligence.)
Don't read the comments, unless you feel an urge to do verbal battle with Putin's minions.
Also: The Aviationist » Russia Claims 71 Out Of 105 Cruise Missiles Downed In Yesteday’s Air Strikes. None Were Shot Down According to The US.
In which, note the following sentence:
If Syrian air defense units were ineffective in stopping U.S. cruise missiles, and most information now points to that outcome (actually, it looks like the Syrians fired their missiles after the last missile had hit), this represents a significant blow to the Assad regime and to Russia’s ability to assist in an effective air defense in the region.(Emphasis added.)
Thursday, January 14, 2016
QOTD, 01/13/16
Via Instapundit.It’s nice to elect the right people, but that’s not the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.Milton Friedman
Monday, September 30, 2013
Government Shutdown #'s 1-17
The Washington ComPost takes a look. And has fun naming them. (Note that a change in the interpretation of The Rules early in the 1980s changed the impact of a failure to produce a budget/appropriations bill/Continuing Resolution.)
Interesting to look at which party was in control of which house at the time...
Interestingly enough, Jimmeh Cahtuh seems to have serious issues. Ronald Reagan did, too, although from 1981-1990, the shutdowns all seem to have lasted from 24-72 hours...
The longest "shutdown" was the last one previous, under Billy Jeff Clinton, which lasted 25 days, from Dec. 5, 1995 to Jan. 6, 1996.
It may be worth noting that this one caused the White House to bring in a bunch of unpaid interns to fill the positions of laid-off staffers.
Yes, it's true, a government shutdown gave us Monica Lewinsky.
Interesting to look at which party was in control of which house at the time...
Interestingly enough, Jimmeh Cahtuh seems to have serious issues. Ronald Reagan did, too, although from 1981-1990, the shutdowns all seem to have lasted from 24-72 hours...
The longest "shutdown" was the last one previous, under Billy Jeff Clinton, which lasted 25 days, from Dec. 5, 1995 to Jan. 6, 1996.
It may be worth noting that this one caused the White House to bring in a bunch of unpaid interns to fill the positions of laid-off staffers.
Yes, it's true, a government shutdown gave us Monica Lewinsky.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Some thoughts about Starbucks and Guns
So, by now anyone who is likely to be reading my blog has heard about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz' Open Letter requesting that we not bring guns " into our stores or outdoor seating areas."
As anyone reading this blog is almost certainly aware, I live in what I sometimes refer to as "the southern frontier of Martin Luther King County"1,so they are probably wondering what my thoughts are.
I'm conflicted. I'm conflicted because I rarely got anything at Starbucks before Starbucks had announced their nominal neutrality in the debate over gun rights anyway. I am also conflicted because of the multiple *facepalm* tactics employed by the advocates of Open Carry...
{An aside here. At least one of the photos that gained wide distribution across the Internet in the midst of this issue was of a man "open carrying" a shotgun in a Starbucks. I have been told that the subject of this photo is allegedly a US Navy sailor "open carrying" his issued weapon in a Starbucks on base in the Middle East. (Kuwait or Qatar.) If so, I find the use of the photo misleading and irresponsible -- not his posting it to his own page, but the wide dissemination of it in support of a cause, without explanation}
Disclaimer: I have had run ins before with Open Carry advocates. Too many of them have an in-your-face style that I find offensive. During one debate on the WA-CCW Yahoo! mailing list several years ago, I suggested that range protection legislation was more important than Open Carry, especially since Open Carry was already legal in WA, if not widely recognized. You'd have thought I'd proposed renaming the state after Osama Bin Laden; the OC contingent immediately began the ad hominem attacks on myself, my character, and my dedication to Our Cause and Mom, The Flag, and Apple Pie.
Which does nothing to win your cause any Brownie Points with veterans in general, and retired NCOs in particular.
A couple of further points to keep in mind, are that, while Seattle is generally recognized as a polite, courteous city, possibly due to it's Scandinavian influence, it also has a reputation for passive-aggressive behavior. (Same source?)
Also, while Washington has a rep for Progressive Liberalism, two topics which keep the entire state, including Seattle, from being the most ultra-violet of states are income tax and guns.
We're rather proud, in fact, that Sarah Brady refers to us as "Gun Crazy Washington." Among other things to keep in mind, Washington had Shall Issue concealed carry permits in the early 1960s, and State Preemption in the 80s.
Anyway. I don't generally OC. I regard it as poor tactics for self-defense. I never enjoyed being the center of attention, or of causing people to freak out. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm misguided. But the fact that the OC contingent tends to over-react is off-putting.
Which does not mean that my dedication to the cause of Gun Rights is diminished!
Now, one thing that is causing confusion in the Gun Rights Community is the fact that Howard Schultz' Open Letter ask us "not to bring firearms" into Starbucks' property, but it talks about OC, and it also says that "this is not a ban, it's a request." A lot of people are choosing to interpret that as some sort of "wink-and-a-nod" acceptance of concealed carry. And the Intardt00bz are being torn up with backing-and-forthing and justifications and gnats being strained at...
Anyhoo, as a geek with border-line Aspergers Syndrome2, 3, one thing I think a lot of people are missing in their attempts to parse Mr. Schultz' request is that, under Washington State law -- and the term "Seattle Progressive/Liberal" gets tossed around a lot -- a prohibition of firearms in a place of business has no weight unless every entrance to the facility is posted. So that Starbucks stand in your Safeway store, or the mall, or whatever, cannot effectively ban firearms.
Also, such a prohibition has no weight under law unless they catch you, ask you to leave, and you either refuse to leave or return, armed. Even then, the most they can do is ask the police to cite you for misdemeanor trespass.
Obviously, the law in your locality will vary, but I think that Mr. Schultz ran the letter by the legal department and they told him to go with what could realistically be requested.
Meanwhile, some people are all butthurt because the letter addressed Open Carry and Firearms in general, not the Antis.
No shit. You thought Starbucks was going to announce an Anti-First Amendment Rights Policy?
Yes, a corporate policy addressing political demonstrations/debates on Starbucks controlled property might be prudent. In fact, I would like to see them publish a policy that "any participants of meetings, conversations, or debates that get heated or confrontational will be ejected."
I would also like to see them try and enforce it, especially when so many of their facilities are inside other businesses, or they are claiming "outside seating areas, which in many cases are simply wide areas on sidewalks.
So, to sum up, my own frequenting of Starbucks is fairly recent, they don't want me or my kind in their stores, they recognize the impossibility of an outright ban, and are engaging in what we locally refer to as stereotypical Seattle passive-aggressiveness on a corporate scale.
I will probably go back to seeking my caffeine fix elsewhere.
Unless I feel like being a rebel, in which case, suck it, Howard Schultz.
A couple of links:
1. Meaning absolutely no disrespect to Dr. King, I have to wonder what he would have thought about changing the name of King County to Martin Luther King County, not to mention the money spent on the change. I also wonder how the Chris Rock Rule "If you're looking at a street sign that says 'Martin Luther King Avenue' you're in the bad part of town" applies to the entire county...?
2. Yes, I know the shrinks de-listed Aspergers Syndrome. They got all pissy because us non-shrink types were using the term. They did the same several years ago with "neurosis." "You can't use our secret codewords!"
3. I say "borderline" because I assume anyone who types "Do I have Aspergers?" into their Internet Search Engine of Choice and takes the online "Do I Have Aspergers?" Quiz will probably get a positive answer...
As anyone reading this blog is almost certainly aware, I live in what I sometimes refer to as "the southern frontier of Martin Luther King County"1,so they are probably wondering what my thoughts are.
I'm conflicted. I'm conflicted because I rarely got anything at Starbucks before Starbucks had announced their nominal neutrality in the debate over gun rights anyway. I am also conflicted because of the multiple *facepalm* tactics employed by the advocates of Open Carry...
{An aside here. At least one of the photos that gained wide distribution across the Internet in the midst of this issue was of a man "open carrying" a shotgun in a Starbucks. I have been told that the subject of this photo is allegedly a US Navy sailor "open carrying" his issued weapon in a Starbucks on base in the Middle East. (Kuwait or Qatar.) If so, I find the use of the photo misleading and irresponsible -- not his posting it to his own page, but the wide dissemination of it in support of a cause, without explanation}
Disclaimer: I have had run ins before with Open Carry advocates. Too many of them have an in-your-face style that I find offensive. During one debate on the WA-CCW Yahoo! mailing list several years ago, I suggested that range protection legislation was more important than Open Carry, especially since Open Carry was already legal in WA, if not widely recognized. You'd have thought I'd proposed renaming the state after Osama Bin Laden; the OC contingent immediately began the ad hominem attacks on myself, my character, and my dedication to Our Cause and Mom, The Flag, and Apple Pie.
Which does nothing to win your cause any Brownie Points with veterans in general, and retired NCOs in particular.
A couple of further points to keep in mind, are that, while Seattle is generally recognized as a polite, courteous city, possibly due to it's Scandinavian influence, it also has a reputation for passive-aggressive behavior. (Same source?)
Also, while Washington has a rep for Progressive Liberalism, two topics which keep the entire state, including Seattle, from being the most ultra-violet of states are income tax and guns.
We're rather proud, in fact, that Sarah Brady refers to us as "Gun Crazy Washington." Among other things to keep in mind, Washington had Shall Issue concealed carry permits in the early 1960s, and State Preemption in the 80s.
Anyway. I don't generally OC. I regard it as poor tactics for self-defense. I never enjoyed being the center of attention, or of causing people to freak out. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm misguided. But the fact that the OC contingent tends to over-react is off-putting.
Which does not mean that my dedication to the cause of Gun Rights is diminished!
Now, one thing that is causing confusion in the Gun Rights Community is the fact that Howard Schultz' Open Letter ask us "not to bring firearms" into Starbucks' property, but it talks about OC, and it also says that "this is not a ban, it's a request." A lot of people are choosing to interpret that as some sort of "wink-and-a-nod" acceptance of concealed carry. And the Intardt00bz are being torn up with backing-and-forthing and justifications and gnats being strained at...
Anyhoo, as a geek with border-line Aspergers Syndrome2, 3, one thing I think a lot of people are missing in their attempts to parse Mr. Schultz' request is that, under Washington State law -- and the term "Seattle Progressive/Liberal" gets tossed around a lot -- a prohibition of firearms in a place of business has no weight unless every entrance to the facility is posted. So that Starbucks stand in your Safeway store, or the mall, or whatever, cannot effectively ban firearms.
Also, such a prohibition has no weight under law unless they catch you, ask you to leave, and you either refuse to leave or return, armed. Even then, the most they can do is ask the police to cite you for misdemeanor trespass.
Obviously, the law in your locality will vary, but I think that Mr. Schultz ran the letter by the legal department and they told him to go with what could realistically be requested.
Meanwhile, some people are all butthurt because the letter addressed Open Carry and Firearms in general, not the Antis.
No shit. You thought Starbucks was going to announce an Anti-First Amendment Rights Policy?
Yes, a corporate policy addressing political demonstrations/debates on Starbucks controlled property might be prudent. In fact, I would like to see them publish a policy that "any participants of meetings, conversations, or debates that get heated or confrontational will be ejected."
I would also like to see them try and enforce it, especially when so many of their facilities are inside other businesses, or they are claiming "outside seating areas, which in many cases are simply wide areas on sidewalks.
So, to sum up, my own frequenting of Starbucks is fairly recent, they don't want me or my kind in their stores, they recognize the impossibility of an outright ban, and are engaging in what we locally refer to as stereotypical Seattle passive-aggressiveness on a corporate scale.
I will probably go back to seeking my caffeine fix elsewhere.
Unless I feel like being a rebel, in which case, suck it, Howard Schultz.
A couple of links:
- Tam has consistently said that "Howard Schultz made a polite request that I not being guns into his stores, and I will politely comply with his wishes. Unfortunately for him, that means I will not be entering his stores either." She'd been burning up Twitter these days...
- And GC offers up Twelve Thoughts on the current debate..
1. Meaning absolutely no disrespect to Dr. King, I have to wonder what he would have thought about changing the name of King County to Martin Luther King County, not to mention the money spent on the change. I also wonder how the Chris Rock Rule "If you're looking at a street sign that says 'Martin Luther King Avenue' you're in the bad part of town" applies to the entire county...?
2. Yes, I know the shrinks de-listed Aspergers Syndrome. They got all pissy because us non-shrink types were using the term. They did the same several years ago with "neurosis." "You can't use our secret codewords!"
3. I say "borderline" because I assume anyone who types "Do I have Aspergers?" into their Internet Search Engine of Choice and takes the online "Do I Have Aspergers?" Quiz will probably get a positive answer...
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Idiots, Cats, and a Heroine
AKA inbox-clearing, all linky, no thinky post. (A lot of these are links to links, as it were.)
- NSA data center front and center in debate over liberty, security and privacy | Fox News
- Missouri Secretly Shares Entire CCW List With Feds Against State Law | RedState (Via Insty and Daily Pundit.)(The subject occasionally comes up of eliminating a separate permit, and simply marking one's drivers license to indicate "concealed carry." The question of whether Offcier Friendly really has a Need to Know aside, too many other people see your DL for that to be prudent.)
- Instapundit » Blog Archive » CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties. In the immortal words of John McClain, "Welcome to the party, pal!"
- Instapundit » Blog Archive » DO BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN PURCHASES ACTUALLY WORK?
“With so much case study available, you would think advocates could show us more convincing evidence,” Clayton Cramer writes.
- Liberal Hypocrisy Watch | Power Line. Talk about an endless task...
- Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinking Constitution. We’re the IRS. | Daily Pundit. In case you hadn't heard, the IRS says it doesn't need a warrant to read your emails...
- SayUncle » Drawing IRE
- SayUncle » The plan.
- Instapundit » Blog Archive » FEMINIST SCIENCE FICTION FANS get April Fool’s piece taken down. Pathetic…. Well, feminists are usually fanatics, and fanatics are rarely known for possessing anything resembling a sense of humor. Granted that humor is lacking in many April Fool's jokes, you'd think maybe they'd feel a sense of solidarity...
***
- Instapundit » Blog Archive » THE SECRET LIFE OF CATS: What You Can Learn By Putting a GPS on Your Kitty….. The answer seems to "Not much."
- How Old Is Your Cat in Human Years? - Cheezburger. Ratbane is curled up in my lap right now, snoozing. He's probably wishing all those damned ittens would GET OFF HIS LAWN!
***
- To offset the Annals of Authoritarianism above, a few links about The Iron Lady (pbuh):
- Instapundit » Blog Archive » WAS THERE ANYTHING SHE COULDN’T DO? Margaret Thatcher Helped Invent Soft-Serve Ice Cream. No kidding. I had no idea.
- From the Well, There's Your problem Department: Instapundit » Blog Archive » VIRGINIA POSTREL ON what was wrong with Meryl Streep’s version of Margaret Thatcher….. Um, Meryl Streep?
- Maggie Thatcher Versus the Establishment | Via Meadia
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Korea
Been thinking about this post for a while. Bill Quick asked me for my input on Daily Pundit, and I thought I'd expand on it here. Understand that, while I spent my Army career as a US Army SIGINT geek, I retired almost 13 years ago, so at this point what I am offering is based on current Open Source data as much as (or even more than) stuff I knew back then.
Some links:
North Korea’s Tipping Point of No Return | SOFREP
Author makes a convincing argument that Little Kim may have reached the point of no return: north Korea has closed the KaeSongDong Industrial Area, which is their only legitimate source of revenue. (As opposed to dealing drugs and counterfeiting. They used to make coin from the rake-off from pachinko parlors in Japan--lots of ex-pat norks in Japan, and one of the few areas of commerce the Japanese allowed them was running pachinko parlors--but the Yakuza moved in.)
From the same web site: The North Korean Threat
Concur with their assessment that north Korean missiles, with any warhead, are no real threat to the Continental US, and of scant threat to Alaska and Hawaii. Japan, Guam, the Philippines, maybe -- not so sanguine about their ability to not have the thing go "ka-boom!" shortly after lift off, not to mention hit their target.
OTOH,who's to say that they will attempt an attack via conventional means? Why not a nuke in a shipping container? Or a weaponized "weather satellite"? (h/t Bill Quick's Emergency-Preps.com board.)
Or...
Korean Special Forces: North vs South | SOFREP
+
This Is What Air War Over North Korea Would Look Like - Popular Mechanics (h/t Insty.)
+
Can North Korea Flatten Seoul? - North Korea’s Weapons Capabilties - Popular Mechanics
Pretty much every artillery piece that north Korea ever owned is still in service, ranging from direct-fire anti-tank pieces that Hitlers Panzers laughed at up to 170mm and beyond, plus Scuds and Katyuskas and I can't remember what else without a Wiki-wander that isn't really necessary at this point. (Still.) Leaving aside the much-vaunted Taepo Dongs, etc., they can easily bombard as far south as the Han River -- meaning Seoul -- although it may be true that, as the author of that last link points out, their ability to "flatten" Seoul is hyperbole.
On the other hand, the Seoul area of the Republic of Korea is, if anything, even more urbanized than Los Angeles and vicinity. Miles and miles of multiple (12? 20? More?) story apartment blocks, row on row, as far north as Tongducheon. From the air -- why didn't I have a camera during my last tour? -- they look, aptly enough, like dominoes waiting to be tipped over. (I was told that at least one ROK Army officer said they were sited and built deliberately as part of the Obstacle Plan. Don't know.)
Now, one of the reasons that military doctrine tends to discourage operations in urban areas is that, the more destruction you cause in your attack, the easier it is for the defender.
And I know for a certainty that every bridge, dam, and levee was designed and built with it's demolition in mind.
And every hilltop north of the Han River has at least an air defense observation post on it, unless it has a counter-battery radar site. (Most of these sites are not fully occupied under ordinary circumstances, but revetments and bunkers are in place. Great for training, until the owning ROK unit shows up for their training. They were usually pretty cool about sharing, but I spent one years as Platoon Sergeant of a Heavy Radio Direction Finding Platoon trying to figure out where to put my teams during exercises.)
The same is not exactly true up north: north Koreans cannot dream of anything like the development the Republic of Korea has undergone, it does not have anything like the population, or infrastructure. Only select families are allowed to live in any of the cities. There are few paved roads, let alone superhighways.
And the hilltop sites are fully occupied, all the time; each one has one or more heavy Anti-Aircraft Machine Guns, and often anti-aircraft artillery cannon, radar, missiles...
In a way the AAMGs are more worrisome than the heavier (and logically more deadly) cannon or missiles, because they rely on the Mark One Eyeball for guidance and an itchy-for-the-glory-of-the-Eternal Leader Kim Il Sung trigger finger. Field telephones and radios suffice for communications and fire control (although by the time I retired we suspected that some form of cellular telephones were in use by commanders.)
So, while the Suppression of Enemy Air defenses (SEAD) mission will be critical, and hairy indeed. ("Yes, Colonel, my EH60s can jam the enemy air defense nets. No, they cannot keep up with your Apaches. And we have no armament. And G2 won't chop us to that mission. No, Eighth Army G2 won't either. No, Combined Field Army J2 won't, either. Maybe you should call the White House.")
While attending the Advanced Non-Commissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) at the US Army Military Intelligence Center and School at Ft Huachuca, we were assigned to write a ""staff study" on a hypothetical Low Intensity Conflict in our area of concern. I posited a scenario in which, after a massive bombardment, the north launched an assault across the Demilitarized Zone with it's conventional forces, including mechanized brigades, with the primary intention of infiltrating it's special operations forces, who would the, allegedly, wreak havoc in the Republic of Korea's rear, possibly attempting to cross theSea of Japan East Sea (originally known in Europe as the Korean Sea, BTW) to see what mischief they could get up to there.
No doubt the conventional forces would continue to die gloriously for the revolution, unaware that they were mere pawns in the great game of life. Or thrones, if you like.
The intent, of course, would essentially be to blackmail the ROK and it's allies into acquiescing with whatever it is that the lunatics in Pyongyang thought it was they stood to gain.
Thing is... 1996 Gangneung submarine infiltration incident.
The guy they captured? Caught on a farm, he broke in to steal food, wasn't worried about being seen, since he was out in the boonies, never ever occurred to him by his own admission that a mere farmer would have a telephone. Or that the police could arrive so quickly.
Two of the commandos were seen on a ROK Army base, playing video games in the exchange. (Bit of an uproar about that in the Ministry of Defense...)
Commie infiltrators are routinely tripped up by their very obvious dialect and accent; in fact, defectors to the south have a hard time doing more than getting by, because they are so poorly prepared to live in a high-tech, industrial more-or-less democratic society.
So, I dunno. Is north Korea a threat to the Continental US? Again, I doubt it. If their long-range missiles can make it off the launch pad, they might have the range to hit Alaska or Hawaii, but there's an awful lot of "nothing" in those areas; ditto for Guam or the Philippines.
OTOH, like I said above, they may try something in a shipping container or the like.
And, hell, simply disrupting the economies of the Republic of Korea, Japan, and both Chinas will be devastating to a sensitive world economy.
What do they have to gain? Hell, I don't know, their people would be better off festooning lampposts with their bodies and surrendering. The trouble with that theory is that the north Korean people have been so isolated for so long; Kim Il Sung (and Kim Jong Il and Kim Jang Un) is their religion and their reason for being. As former Washington Post and NPR Tokyto correspondant T.R. Reid described in The Man Who Would Be God; North Korea's Kim Il Sung - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research, on a tour intended to bring in hard western cash in 1992, he interviewed a few north Koreans.
Bottom line, war is nasty, and a war on the Korean Peninsula would be as bloody a civil war as has been fought in a century or more. The leaders of north Korea are not sane, and may very well be insane enough to start WWIII just to prove a point. As for the people, well, Reid again:
What better reason for a sawed-off runt of a hereditary dictator to start a conflagration?
Some links:
North Korea’s Tipping Point of No Return | SOFREP
Author makes a convincing argument that Little Kim may have reached the point of no return: north Korea has closed the KaeSongDong Industrial Area, which is their only legitimate source of revenue. (As opposed to dealing drugs and counterfeiting. They used to make coin from the rake-off from pachinko parlors in Japan--lots of ex-pat norks in Japan, and one of the few areas of commerce the Japanese allowed them was running pachinko parlors--but the Yakuza moved in.)
From the same web site: The North Korean Threat
Concur with their assessment that north Korean missiles, with any warhead, are no real threat to the Continental US, and of scant threat to Alaska and Hawaii. Japan, Guam, the Philippines, maybe -- not so sanguine about their ability to not have the thing go "ka-boom!" shortly after lift off, not to mention hit their target.
OTOH,who's to say that they will attempt an attack via conventional means? Why not a nuke in a shipping container? Or a weaponized "weather satellite"? (h/t Bill Quick's Emergency-Preps.com board.)
Or...
Korean Special Forces: North vs South | SOFREP
+
This Is What Air War Over North Korea Would Look Like - Popular Mechanics (h/t Insty.)
+
Can North Korea Flatten Seoul? - North Korea’s Weapons Capabilties - Popular Mechanics
Pretty much every artillery piece that north Korea ever owned is still in service, ranging from direct-fire anti-tank pieces that Hitlers Panzers laughed at up to 170mm and beyond, plus Scuds and Katyuskas and I can't remember what else without a Wiki-wander that isn't really necessary at this point. (Still.) Leaving aside the much-vaunted Taepo Dongs, etc., they can easily bombard as far south as the Han River -- meaning Seoul -- although it may be true that, as the author of that last link points out, their ability to "flatten" Seoul is hyperbole.
On the other hand, the Seoul area of the Republic of Korea is, if anything, even more urbanized than Los Angeles and vicinity. Miles and miles of multiple (12? 20? More?) story apartment blocks, row on row, as far north as Tongducheon. From the air -- why didn't I have a camera during my last tour? -- they look, aptly enough, like dominoes waiting to be tipped over. (I was told that at least one ROK Army officer said they were sited and built deliberately as part of the Obstacle Plan. Don't know.)
Now, one of the reasons that military doctrine tends to discourage operations in urban areas is that, the more destruction you cause in your attack, the easier it is for the defender.
And I know for a certainty that every bridge, dam, and levee was designed and built with it's demolition in mind.
And every hilltop north of the Han River has at least an air defense observation post on it, unless it has a counter-battery radar site. (Most of these sites are not fully occupied under ordinary circumstances, but revetments and bunkers are in place. Great for training, until the owning ROK unit shows up for their training. They were usually pretty cool about sharing, but I spent one years as Platoon Sergeant of a Heavy Radio Direction Finding Platoon trying to figure out where to put my teams during exercises.)
The same is not exactly true up north: north Koreans cannot dream of anything like the development the Republic of Korea has undergone, it does not have anything like the population, or infrastructure. Only select families are allowed to live in any of the cities. There are few paved roads, let alone superhighways.
And the hilltop sites are fully occupied, all the time; each one has one or more heavy Anti-Aircraft Machine Guns, and often anti-aircraft artillery cannon, radar, missiles...
In a way the AAMGs are more worrisome than the heavier (and logically more deadly) cannon or missiles, because they rely on the Mark One Eyeball for guidance and an itchy-for-the-glory-of-the-Eternal Leader Kim Il Sung trigger finger. Field telephones and radios suffice for communications and fire control (although by the time I retired we suspected that some form of cellular telephones were in use by commanders.)
So, while the Suppression of Enemy Air defenses (SEAD) mission will be critical, and hairy indeed. ("Yes, Colonel, my EH60s can jam the enemy air defense nets. No, they cannot keep up with your Apaches. And we have no armament. And G2 won't chop us to that mission. No, Eighth Army G2 won't either. No, Combined Field Army J2 won't, either. Maybe you should call the White House.")
***
While attending the Advanced Non-Commissioned Officer Course (ANCOC) at the US Army Military Intelligence Center and School at Ft Huachuca, we were assigned to write a ""staff study" on a hypothetical Low Intensity Conflict in our area of concern. I posited a scenario in which, after a massive bombardment, the north launched an assault across the Demilitarized Zone with it's conventional forces, including mechanized brigades, with the primary intention of infiltrating it's special operations forces, who would the, allegedly, wreak havoc in the Republic of Korea's rear, possibly attempting to cross the
No doubt the conventional forces would continue to die gloriously for the revolution, unaware that they were mere pawns in the great game of life. Or thrones, if you like.
The intent, of course, would essentially be to blackmail the ROK and it's allies into acquiescing with whatever it is that the lunatics in Pyongyang thought it was they stood to gain.
Thing is... 1996 Gangneung submarine infiltration incident.
The guy they captured? Caught on a farm, he broke in to steal food, wasn't worried about being seen, since he was out in the boonies, never ever occurred to him by his own admission that a mere farmer would have a telephone. Or that the police could arrive so quickly.
Two of the commandos were seen on a ROK Army base, playing video games in the exchange. (Bit of an uproar about that in the Ministry of Defense...)
Commie infiltrators are routinely tripped up by their very obvious dialect and accent; in fact, defectors to the south have a hard time doing more than getting by, because they are so poorly prepared to live in a high-tech, industrial more-or-less democratic society.
So, I dunno. Is north Korea a threat to the Continental US? Again, I doubt it. If their long-range missiles can make it off the launch pad, they might have the range to hit Alaska or Hawaii, but there's an awful lot of "nothing" in those areas; ditto for Guam or the Philippines.
OTOH, like I said above, they may try something in a shipping container or the like.
And, hell, simply disrupting the economies of the Republic of Korea, Japan, and both Chinas will be devastating to a sensitive world economy.
What do they have to gain? Hell, I don't know, their people would be better off festooning lampposts with their bodies and surrendering. The trouble with that theory is that the north Korean people have been so isolated for so long; Kim Il Sung (and Kim Jong Il and Kim Jang Un) is their religion and their reason for being. As former Washington Post and NPR Tokyto correspondant T.R. Reid described in The Man Who Would Be God; North Korea's Kim Il Sung - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research, on a tour intended to bring in hard western cash in 1992, he interviewed a few north Koreans.
In an interview about the time this article was published, Reid described asking a north Korean farmer about "man walking on the moon" and the farmer asked the interpretor if the "Yangnom" was crazy."We learned in history that only by The Great Leader's Armed Struggle did we defeat the Japanese," says Chun Chang Yon, a 16-year-old junior at Pyongyang No. 1 Junior-Senior High. "America had no effect on the result."
Chun says he did learn in history class about the atomic bomb at Hiroshima, but he sees no connection between that and Japan's defeat in World War II. "We learned that America dropped the atomic bomb, killing so many thousands, because the Americans wanted to show their strength and might to the rest of the world."
This creative approach to history extends to more recent events as well. "Yes, we learned in science class that men had landed on the moon," said Li Chun Ran, a friendly 17-year-old senior at the same school. "The Russian people sent a man to the moon."
Bottom line, war is nasty, and a war on the Korean Peninsula would be as bloody a civil war as has been fought in a century or more. The leaders of north Korea are not sane, and may very well be insane enough to start WWIII just to prove a point. As for the people, well, Reid again:
...But it appears that the people of North Korea genuinely do revere their Great Leader.And, yes, The Great Leader is Kim Il Sung, dead lo! nearly 20 years. His son, Kim Jong Il, the Dear Leader is also an ex-tyrant. And Li'l Kim can't seem to get no respect.
You see it in the awe-filled faces of the pilgrims lined up at Mangyongdae, a Mount Vernon-like expanse of grassy parkland surrounding an Abe Lincoln-style thatched hut purported to be Kim's birthplace. You see it in the painstaking care of a train porter as she polishes her Kim Il Sung lapel badge at the end of a long day. You hear it in the proud, reverent voice of the teacher chosen to read the daily scripture passage from The Great Leader's memoirs to the students in a public school.
It is almost as if the people of North Korea would rather believe the myth than face the reality of their brutally difficult daily life.
That must be why the markets have bright color paintings of lush fresh fruits and vegetables on the walls while the actual shelves offer only slim pickings of wormy potatoes and half-rotted onions. That must be why posters depicting happy children greeting the Great Leader in a bosky green park have been erected in the middle of playgrounds that are actually cracked asphalt pavement.
"We are finding that our biggest problem is not the top of the government but the people," says Aage Holm, an American with the United Nations Development Program who has been working here on a U.N. effort to build economic ties between North Korea and the non-socialist world.
"They are so wrapped up in this business about The Great Leader and their own self-reliance that they don't want anything to change.
"We say, 'You have to change. You have to plan for the future.' And they say, 'We like things the way they are, the way the Great Leader does it.' "
What better reason for a sawed-off runt of a hereditary dictator to start a conflagration?
***
Some other links:- War-Weary Americans Would Support War with North Korea | Via Meadia
- “Green Détente” on the Korean Peninsula? | Via Meadia In the midst of a famine that would have been of record proportions if the commies had had anything resembling an open society, they cut down just about every tree in the country, thinking they'd free up more farm land. The ROPKs are looking at helping them to plant trees to deal with the subsequent erosion...
- OK, Now We’re Worried | Via Meadia Current ROK president Park, Geun-hye, has given the ROK armed forces permission to shoot without prior political clearance. And without the commies shooting first. (President Park, BTW, is the daughter of Park Chung Hee who ruled the Republic of Korea for 18 years. Her mother was murdered in a north Korean assassination attempt on her father)
Monday, January 2, 2012
How far to bug out, and where...?
Mr. LibertyNews on the Shooters' Northwest forum linked to this article--Should you leave the USA before the collapse? Words of wisdom from someone who tried--which contains some cautionary advice regarding leaving the United States before things go "smash."
I haven't traveled as extensively as this guy says he has, but my reaction to folks who say things like "I've had it, I'm leaving"--whether they're running from the IRS, ATF, George Bush, or Barack Obama, has always been "Where are you going to go?"
"Oh, when we visited Freedonia, it was great!" "You were there for a week as a rich American tourist, will they let you stay? Will they grant you citizenship? How will you make a living?"
I'm so mean, smashing peoples' fantasies...
I haven't traveled as extensively as this guy says he has, but my reaction to folks who say things like "I've had it, I'm leaving"--whether they're running from the IRS, ATF, George Bush, or Barack Obama, has always been "Where are you going to go?"
"Oh, when we visited Freedonia, it was great!" "You were there for a week as a rich American tourist, will they let you stay? Will they grant you citizenship? How will you make a living?"
I'm so mean, smashing peoples' fantasies...
Monday, December 26, 2011
More north Korean stuff
From Dear Leader to Marilyn Monroe, defector mocks Kim | Reuters
Analysis: What's the plan if North Korea collapses? | Reuters
As for the second link, I'm not sure there is a plan. There may be a set of contingencies, maybe a recognized set of "what if's?", but... plan? Or maybe it would be better to say, we probably have plans, the ROKs probably have plans, the Japs may or may not have a plan, the ChiComs...? (I'm sure the Russian plan is to grab whatever opportunities may come along.)
For years, the Republic of Korea had an official policy encouraging of working towards Reunification. Then they saw what happened to West Germany post-reunification, and had second thoughts. Then the famines of the 90s happened, and they had to re-re-consider.
Not that they ever actually said "We've decided that reunification may not be in the best interests of the Korean people." No, they feel the rift too deeply, especially since, pre-1950, the majority population was north of the 38th parallel. So, officially, Reunification was always going to be a Good Thing, even if the ROK government wasn't quite working as assiduously towards that goal as they once had.
But when it's not just a matter of "I wonder how cousin Yong Nam is doing?" but "I wonder if Yong Nam has eaten lately, or been eaten?", it get a little more difficult to be pragmatic...
In the early 80s one of the Korean TV networks had a show. IIRC it was supposed to be a one-off, but it turned into a series, lasted a year or more. It had a simple premise: Folks who had fled from the north would get on holding a sign with their name, their home town, and which relative they were looking for. Thousands of families were reunited.
I saw a couple of episodes, the guy who ran the junior NCO lounge had it on: These two guys are standing there next to each other, announcer starts reading sign for guy #1, halfway through guy #2 gets this look like he had been tased, looks at the other guy's sign... They were brothers.
They had to suspend that show, no one in the studio could go on. We also had to send Mr. Chae home for the day, after buying him a couple of drinks.
Lee Sung Man, ("Syngman Rhee" to most westerners) liked to claim that Koreans are the Irish of Asia: They are very passionate, love to drink and sing, and have had centuries of oppression by outsiders. "Centuries", ha!: One of our lessons when I was in the Intermediate Korean course at DLI was about Korean history, and started out with the phrase "Korean history is a five thousand year tragedy."
I suppose you could say this is just more of the same, but you probably shouldn't say it in front of a Korean...
UPDATE: I guess this could be considered "more of the same", too: The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - N.Korea in Frantic Preparation for 2012 Celebrations
Both h/t Rantberg, where you'll find a lot of relevant stuff.
Analysis: What's the plan if North Korea collapses? | Reuters
As for the second link, I'm not sure there is a plan. There may be a set of contingencies, maybe a recognized set of "what if's?", but... plan? Or maybe it would be better to say, we probably have plans, the ROKs probably have plans, the Japs may or may not have a plan, the ChiComs...? (I'm sure the Russian plan is to grab whatever opportunities may come along.)
For years, the Republic of Korea had an official policy encouraging of working towards Reunification. Then they saw what happened to West Germany post-reunification, and had second thoughts. Then the famines of the 90s happened, and they had to re-re-consider.
Not that they ever actually said "We've decided that reunification may not be in the best interests of the Korean people." No, they feel the rift too deeply, especially since, pre-1950, the majority population was north of the 38th parallel. So, officially, Reunification was always going to be a Good Thing, even if the ROK government wasn't quite working as assiduously towards that goal as they once had.
But when it's not just a matter of "I wonder how cousin Yong Nam is doing?" but "I wonder if Yong Nam has eaten lately, or been eaten?", it get a little more difficult to be pragmatic...
In the early 80s one of the Korean TV networks had a show. IIRC it was supposed to be a one-off, but it turned into a series, lasted a year or more. It had a simple premise: Folks who had fled from the north would get on holding a sign with their name, their home town, and which relative they were looking for. Thousands of families were reunited.
I saw a couple of episodes, the guy who ran the junior NCO lounge had it on: These two guys are standing there next to each other, announcer starts reading sign for guy #1, halfway through guy #2 gets this look like he had been tased, looks at the other guy's sign... They were brothers.
They had to suspend that show, no one in the studio could go on. We also had to send Mr. Chae home for the day, after buying him a couple of drinks.
Lee Sung Man, ("Syngman Rhee" to most westerners) liked to claim that Koreans are the Irish of Asia: They are very passionate, love to drink and sing, and have had centuries of oppression by outsiders. "Centuries", ha!: One of our lessons when I was in the Intermediate Korean course at DLI was about Korean history, and started out with the phrase "Korean history is a five thousand year tragedy."
I suppose you could say this is just more of the same, but you probably shouldn't say it in front of a Korean...
UPDATE: I guess this could be considered "more of the same", too: The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - N.Korea in Frantic Preparation for 2012 Celebrations
Several North Korean spies have been arrested for plotting to assassinate South Koreans involved in anti-North Korean campaigns, National Intelligence Service Director Won Sei-hoon told a National Assembly audit Tuesday.And New sign of rising power for new North Korean leader’s uncle - Arab News
Both h/t Rantberg, where you'll find a lot of relevant stuff.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Some inconvenient truths about the Middle East
genes brings us some Some inconvenient truths about the Middle East @ Daily Pundit.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Google Learns a Valuable Lesson
Big Government: Google Learns Government Is Not a Good Business Partner:
Recently, Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, spoke with the Washington Post after his first appearance for congressional testimony, and the “take D.C. by storm” expectation certainly appeared to be catching up with Google as Schmidt vocalized his frustration.Eric Schmidt: Coming soon to a Tea Party rally near you!
“So we get hauled in front of the Congress for developing a product that’s free, that serves a billion people. OK? I mean, I don’t know how to say it any clearer,” Mr. Schmidt stated to the Post. “It’s not like we raised prices. We could lower prices from free to . . . lower than free? You see what I’m saying?”
But the real zinger that many conservatives and maybe even more liberals in the tech sector will be surprised to hear came when Schmidt noted, “Regulation prohibits real innovation, because the regulation essentially defines a path to follow,” he said. “[This] by definition has a bias to the current outcome, because it’s a path for the current outcome.”
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Last QOTD, I promise!
I swear, they are trying to repeal the Industrial Revolution.Note to self, add rat poison to Big Box Store shopping list, alongside incandescent bulbs...
Tamara, in Maybe we can do for bubonic plague what we did for malaria!, which is certainly the Blog Post Title of the Day.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Dinga Dinga Dee!
I had heard about this "music video" put together by Israeli Defense manufacturer Rafael to entice the Indians to Buy Israeli, but hadn't seen it, until now, courtesy of BlackFive:
Apparently, in some quarters, it is seen as being somehow tref. Due to my embracing multi-culturalism, and some free tickets Mrs. Drang scored to Salaam Bombay! a couple of years ago, I know that it is actually a pretty fair "Bollywood" musical number, complete with nonsense refrain. ("Dinga Dinga Dee!", which Firefox's spell checker does not question...)
I mean, considering the way His Imperial Majesty and His Foreign Minister are sucking up to all the bad guys in the world, it makes sense for the Israelis and the Indians to get cozy.
I just think they should have danced around a Mrkva, and that the guy in the leather should have danced with a bottle on his head...
Apparently, in some quarters, it is seen as being somehow tref. Due to my embracing multi-culturalism, and some free tickets Mrs. Drang scored to Salaam Bombay! a couple of years ago, I know that it is actually a pretty fair "Bollywood" musical number, complete with nonsense refrain. ("Dinga Dinga Dee!", which Firefox's spell checker does not question...)
I mean, considering the way His Imperial Majesty and His Foreign Minister are sucking up to all the bad guys in the world, it makes sense for the Israelis and the Indians to get cozy.
I just think they should have danced around a Mrkva, and that the guy in the leather should have danced with a bottle on his head...
Monday, August 18, 2008
More from and on Georgia
So the Commies ooops, the Russians, claim they're pulling out. So far, as that NY Times article I just linked to shows, no one has seen them packing anything, unless you count the looting that is widely reported. Plus ca change, and all that.
Anyway. A digest, of sorts, from around the Internet:
At Blackfive, Laughing Wolf posts a message from Olga, who grew up in/under the Soviet Union, and describes a previous incident.
Victor Davis Hansen had the following in his blog Works and Days:
Threats Watch has a few items, including a Rapid Recon piece here suggesting that Russia has moved SS21 balistic missiles into South Ossetia.
And the Christian Science Monitor had not one but two items in my daily RSS feed on the long-term ramifications ofSoviet {there I go again!} Russian empire building.
(1. )
Anyway. A digest, of sorts, from around the Internet:
At Blackfive, Laughing Wolf posts a message from Olga, who grew up in/under the Soviet Union, and describes a previous incident.
By 1989, Georgian national movement for independence was using bona fide peaceful mass demonstrations to achieve its goal of declaring Georgian independence. On April 9, 1989 the square in front of the Georgian ‘parliament’ in Tbilisi was packed with people, civilians, including women and elderly. They were standing literally shoulder to shoulder from the morning into the night. We were watching Leningrad TV channel that had its cameramen on the location.OPFOR recommends this Washington Post editorial by Fred Hiatt:
(Leningrad has always been somewhat ‘independent’ from Moscow and, therefore, had 2 own TV channels that used the freedoms brought by perestroika to show stuff that the official Moscow TV won’t air). As the meeting progressed into the quite a cold night, all of a sudden a commotion started at one of the corners of the square…It was the Russian Army, the paratroopers (desantiniki VDV) of the Pskov division (outside of Georgia) breaking up the demonstration using their tactical shovels, hacking their way from one end of the square to another. Since the square was packed standing room only, it was almost impossible for people to leave, through an opening offered by a couple of streets leading away from the square, quick enough to avoid the paratroopers with the shovels. I have no words to describe my horror as I watched that bloody scene on TV…
Who Made Russia Attack?The Small Wars Journal links to many articles and OpEds in their daily roundup, here. ("Europe and the Caucasus", towards bottom of page.)
By Fred Hiatt
Monday, August 18, 2008; Page A11
As Russian forces loot and occupy a neighboring state, conscripting Georgian civilians at gunpoint to sweep their city streets, it's not uncommon, in Moscow or in Washington, to find America at fault.Russia has gone over to the dark side -- or, in the Moscow version, has finally stood up for itself -- in understandable reaction to U.S. disrespect, according to this view. And the next president should learn a lesson from this: that there are limits to how far Russia can or should be pushed.
This narrative of American provocation cites a long list of grievances, but the principal and original sin is NATO expansion. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States encouraged the newly free nations of Central and Eastern Europe to join a military alliance whose founding purpose had been containment of the U.S.S.R. Russia hated the idea from the start, and the United States should have known that Moscow, once it recovered its strength, would exact retribution.
But was this really something that was done to, or even against, Russia? The vision behind NATO expansion under both President Bill Clinton and President Bush was a Europe whole and free. The carrot of NATO membership was dangled, first of all, to ease the dangers of transition. Applicant countries had to promise civilian control of their militaries, fair treatment of ethnic minorities and respect for international borders. Given the terrible things that might have accompanied the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact and Czechoslovakia -- Yugoslavia on a far greater scale -- the policy was amazingly successful.
...
But Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000, had a different vision of Russia's place in the world. Russia "has tended to feel absolutely secure only when everybody else, particularly those around its borders, feels absolutely insecure," Russia hand Strobe Talbott noted last week, and Putin fell squarely in that tradition. At home, he quashed political opposition and independent media. He brought Russia's mineral riches back under state control and then began using them -- oil and natural gas in particular -- to enforce obeisance abroad.
And he viewed NATO expansion as an affront, as something done to Russia, not because he imagined that Estonia or Georgia or even NATO itself ever would attack Russia, but because it complicated Russia's drive for hegemony. Seeing the world as a contest among spheres of influence, he could not imagine that the leaders behind NATO might see things differently.
Victor Davis Hansen had the following in his blog Works and Days:
Professor Hansen is the first, but not the last, I know of who pointed out that, in an ironic way, it is a good thing that Georgia has not yet been granted NATO membership, because in all likelihood the only European members of NATO who would have been willing to do more than wring their hands and send off stern notes of protest would have been the US--and, let's face it, as soon as congress got involved, even that much is not certain.Back to the 19th-century
We saw a glimpse of the back to the future world with the neo-czarist invasion of Vladimir Putin. Russia knows the great truth about the West: it will pour a half-million people into the street to protest the United States removing a homicidal dictator to foster democracy, but not a half-dozen to object to Russia attempting to remove a democratic government to foster dictatorship. Absolute standards of morality are passé; for the Left grandstanding about Abu Ghraib brings some sort of psychological recompense for being a blessed Westerner; objecting to Russian or Chinese behavior either is futile or gives no kick to a sense of self-loathing.The Russians understand the Thucydidean truth that ‘the strong do as they please, and the weak do as they must.’ Putin et al. , as in the case of the Russian leveling of Grozny, have sized up the world—the sanctimonious EU, the blow-hard UN, the self-important World Court—and in response have rephrased Stalin’s quip “How many divisions do they have?” And they are right, of course. Old Gorby has been writing his usual post-Marxist nonsense with barely disguised glee over the resurgence of Russian pride and power. Most Western talking heads on television blather about “Bush and the neo-cons,” “We gave the Georgians the green light,” or “We went into Iraq”, in-between a sort of poorly-disguised respect for raw Russian power.
The only upside to this disaster is that Georgia was not in NATO and thus spared the alliance the humiliation of yawning while a member evoked Article V and learned its allies are out to their accustomed latte.
Threats Watch has a few items, including a Rapid Recon piece here suggesting that Russia has moved SS21 balistic missiles into South Ossetia.
And the Christian Science Monitor had not one but two items in my daily RSS feed on the long-term ramifications of
(1. )
After Georgia, what future for NATO?and (2.)
Russia's message – 'We're back and we're strong' – creates a new geopolitical dynamic in Eurasia for the Western alliance.
By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the August 18, 2008 edition
Washington - The Russian Army's foray into Georgia this month has had enormous international impact. But the actions of its conventional forces served more to send a message to the West than to pose any significant military challenge much past its borders.
The immediate crisis in Georgia appears to be over for now. But as the West assesses what is clearly a new geopolitical dynamic in Eurasia, there is recognition that while Russia's military may not be as formidable as it once was, NATO and other Western allies must adapt quickly to counter the threat it does pose to its immediate neighbors.
That will undoubtedly lead to a broader debate about the future of NATO, its membership roster, and the resources it will need to create a viable impediment to Russia's military, whatever Moscow's ambitions may be.
'New Europe' urges West to rethink Russian ties
Seizing on the conflict in Georgia, East European countries are pushing for strong measures against an aggressive Moscow they say they know all too well.
By Robert Marquand | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the August 18, 2008 edition
Warsaw - They live in a historically battered region between West and East, the Rhine and the Volga, Berlin and Moscow. Now, as Russian tanks rumble in Georgia, the states of "new Europe" are urging the West to rethink its relationship with Russia and are pushing for new security and strong measures against an aggressive Moscow they say they know all too well.
From Poland to Ukraine, the Czech Republic to Bulgaria, Russia's invasion of Georgia with tanks, troops, and planes is described as a test of Western resolve. The former Soviet states are vowing to thwart Russian aims – in deals with the European Union, in a missile-defense pact with the US, and in trade and diplomacy.
Polish and Baltic officials, most of whom grew up under Soviet occupation, have long chafed at being described in Western Europe as too "Russia-phobic" in their oft-repeated warnings about Moscow's intentions. But now in this gritty capital, the refrain is, "We told you so."
The strength of Polish feeling against Russia is measured by the quick completion of a US missile defense pact last week, after 18 months of wrangling in Warsaw and Washington. While the US has stoutly argued that the missiles were meant as a shield against rogue attacks from Iran, their strategic value here has apparently shifted. Polish opposition to hosting 10 proposed missile silos dropped by 30 percent in the week after Russia's military move in Georgia, according to polls in Warsaw.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Georgia--and Russia
So every time I have thought about posting my thoughts on the Georgia Crisis I have come up against a few facts or issues, like that I am no expert on the area. Also, time, etc.
There are several excellent posts on the subject at the following blogs or sites:
When some of the former SSRs started turning Democratic, and then petitioning for membership into NATO... Well, paranoia is an integral part of the Russian psyche. This explains why the loss of control of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia anbd the Czech republic, East Germany, and their membership in NATO--not to mention Ukraine!--sends Russian politicians and "diplomats" into conniptions.
The Russians were making money off of Saddam Hussein, and are still making money off of Iran. Iran is right next door to Georgia.
The Russians backed the Serbs in the Balkans. That is, the non-Muslim Serbs, the ones who were doing the mass murdering and raping, not the murderees and rapees...
Some have marveled at Vladimir Putin's ability to shake off his KGB past and become a liberal, democratic politician. They probably won't change their tune.
Georgia has the third largest allied military contingent in Iraq, after the US and UK. And the US has been providing the Georgian military with training since it ceased to be an SSR.
It would be easy to sit back and claim that we don't have a dog in this fight, and maybe try and pretend that "both sides are at fault."
Hogwash.
Supporting Georgia against Russian invasion is The Right Thing To Do. You may poo-poo the idea of "national prestige", but letting Russia roll over whatever small countries they feel like devouring would deal US credibility a blow worse as bad as or worse than letting South Viet Nam die was. Certainly the Israelis would have cause to worry--and the assurance of US support and protection may be all that is keeping the Israelis from nuking Iran, among other significant Middle Eastern locations.
Obviously, it would be great if we could resolve this peacefully, but the Russians are already violating a cease-fire that went into effect yesterday--and they may never have abided by it.
This is not pretty and it will be a long while before it becomes pretty. I have been trying to avoid historical allusions, but the obvious comparison to a chance to stand up to Hitler before he had even marched into the Rhineland comes to mind...
There are several excellent posts on the subject at the following blogs or sites:
- Wikipedia article on European Georgia.
- Blackfive
- Op-For
- Small Wars Journal--Technically not really their cup of meat, I suppose, but they have quite a bit of info on South Ossetia.
- GlobalSecurity.org has quite a bit on Georgia and South Ossetia.
- The Tank at National Review Online comments on a piece by Ralph Peters here.
- And Threats Watch reports that, among other things, the Russians may have deployed the PKK (Marxist Kurd Terrorists) into Georgia in advance of their invasion, and that their forces consist of some units made up entirely of ethnic Chechens.
When some of the former SSRs started turning Democratic, and then petitioning for membership into NATO... Well, paranoia is an integral part of the Russian psyche. This explains why the loss of control of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia anbd the Czech republic, East Germany, and their membership in NATO--not to mention Ukraine!--sends Russian politicians and "diplomats" into conniptions.
The Russians were making money off of Saddam Hussein, and are still making money off of Iran. Iran is right next door to Georgia.
The Russians backed the Serbs in the Balkans. That is, the non-Muslim Serbs, the ones who were doing the mass murdering and raping, not the murderees and rapees...
Some have marveled at Vladimir Putin's ability to shake off his KGB past and become a liberal, democratic politician. They probably won't change their tune.
Georgia has the third largest allied military contingent in Iraq, after the US and UK. And the US has been providing the Georgian military with training since it ceased to be an SSR.
It would be easy to sit back and claim that we don't have a dog in this fight, and maybe try and pretend that "both sides are at fault."
Hogwash.
Supporting Georgia against Russian invasion is The Right Thing To Do. You may poo-poo the idea of "national prestige", but letting Russia roll over whatever small countries they feel like devouring would deal US credibility a blow worse as bad as or worse than letting South Viet Nam die was. Certainly the Israelis would have cause to worry--and the assurance of US support and protection may be all that is keeping the Israelis from nuking Iran, among other significant Middle Eastern locations.
Obviously, it would be great if we could resolve this peacefully, but the Russians are already violating a cease-fire that went into effect yesterday--and they may never have abided by it.
This is not pretty and it will be a long while before it becomes pretty. I have been trying to avoid historical allusions, but the obvious comparison to a chance to stand up to Hitler before he had even marched into the Rhineland comes to mind...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)