.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Neocons Place Noose on Israel's Neck

Shiites Tighten it.

While seldom perusing this website, having grown wearisome of the nattering nabobs of nescience who can only repeat out of date talking points long after the policy has shifted, without the nabobs realizing it, I do visit occasionally. True to their character, while continuing to defend a policy that even the administration has now shifted, these neocons can only address an argument by first creating a strawman.

Hence, you get the following from Sloanoaurus: "I don't think it bodes well for middle east peace. Further, it emboldens the critics of Democracy (i.e. Federal Farmer) who still pray for the reemergence of Sparta in the west." Curious, that. Having served in uniform (USMC - 0311 Infantryman, Army PsyOps Specialist, Army JAG Officer, 1st Gulf War veteran), unlike all of my Neocon friends who diligently avoid military service, I don't worship the God of War, nor do I believe all problems can be settled that way. In other words, I would fit into neither Sparta, nor Prussia. Needless to say to anyone who is not an ignoramous, however, I place national security of the United States as the mission of the United States military. That being said, it does not mean that marching off to occupy a foreign land is always a solution to every problem. In fact, the United States Army used to teach that there was a spectrum of conflict, relying on Clausewitz, ranging from 1 (politics, the natural competition between States) to 10 (war). In between was operations other than war, counter terrorism, counter insurgency, etc. Implicit in the theory was trying a minimal level of conflict, while yet prevailing, recognizing the tremendous cost and unpredictability of war.

For example. Germany had a problem with the communists in the 1930's. After a communist allegedly burned the Reichstag, the leader said they were at war, an enabling act was passed expanding the powers of the executive, dissent was suppressed so that no one could question the wisdom of the leader when he did what had to be done to meet the communist threat, and he was cheered enthusiasticly when he had the army march off to the east to finish off the communists. Who could question the wisdom of that? The army made it all the way to the outskirts of Moscow and for 50 years, eastern Europe was free of the communist menace (not). No doubt, Air Marshall Goering counseled the leader that the German Air Force would ensure victory (beware of various "Air Marshall's" advise). In fact, this foolish military adventure by a corporal resulted in the destruction of the political party that was crazy enough to have had the beliefs that they did, the occupation of the country that enabled this absurdity, and harmed the rest of the world by spawning the birth of the Soviet Union as a "Superpower."

Thankfully, the USSR couldn't sustain this. Although they maintained the occupationof a disheartened Europe for a number of years, while gradually losing its grip, it too felt a need to send troops off marching, to Afghanistan. As Brzeninski (I'm not going to look up the spelling) tells it, they were tricked into doing this, in part, by a strategic deception of the US. The USSR allowed no dissenting voices (no defeatism), and the US was able to watch with delight as they floundered about, bleeding themselves dry, and an end to their superpower status as they revealed to the world that there is more to occupation than just getting the troops in the country.

Having said all of that, Sloanoaurus is partially right; the victory of Hamas does embolden, not the enemies of democracy (referring to me, Federal Farmer), but the critics of messianic neocon democrat ideologues, with their utopian schemes. Now that the full import of what we have created in Iraq becomes apparent (Iranian allied Shiites in power, theocracy being established, billions of US dollars going to Iranian allied politician, etc.), even the US government is sobering up. In fact, even while fighting the Sunni insurgency, they're trying to use the Sunni insurgents as a counterweight to the Shiites, now that it is evident who is pulling the Shiite strings.

Consequently, Israeli strategic think tanks are now saying invading Iraq was a strategic disaster for Israel for expanding the influence of Iran, through Shiite proxies, as shown by Hamas' democratic victory, even while neocons are trying for regime change in Syria (counseled against by the Israelis), demanding that Syria control Hezbollah in Lebanon, even though they succeeded in getting Syria to withdraw from Lebanon a year ago, so they are incapable of restraining Hezbollah.

Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, and the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers, has writted that the Iraq war is "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them. Considering that much justification for this adventure was based on the information that Chalabi, identified by the US Defense Intelligence Agency as an Iranian intelligence asset, provided us; it is credible to believe that the neocons facilitated an incredibly successful Iranian strategic deception campaign, with the US and Israel the primary victims, as our strength is diminished relative to other strategic competitors.

As I've said elsewhere, Going by the adage; By their fruits ye shall know them, I think it's time to consider that the neo-cons are an anti-semitic and anti-Christian, secret society, being directed by their hidden Iranian masters. With the triumph of Hamas in Palestine, this becoming evermore apparent.

Finally, in stating: "Perhaps MP George Galloway (ally of some members of JAS)," outdoes himself in revealing his intellectual limitations. As a leftist, Galloway is identical in thought to Christopher Hitchens, an unapoligetic marxist, except for the issue of Iraq. In both cases, however, their opinions arise from their marxist philosophy, although they drew different conclusions on this particular issue.

I am certainly an ally of Lt. Gen. (that 's Lieutenant General for you neocons who only serve vicariously) Odom, former commander of the NSA under President Reagan, who has said the Iraq war is a strategic disaster for the US, along with many other military officers. Let's hope China doesn't call in those IOUs, which we have given to pay for this war. Maybe we can defer payment on to our children. Of course, they're going to have to pay the costs of dealing with an incredibly stronger China and Iran, as a result of this strategic disaster.

Perhaps that is all too defeatist. Let's do Syria.

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

I have to say, of all the people I've known who've served in the military, Federal Farmer is the only one who consistently pulls the "I've served in the military and you didn't, nyah, nyah, nyah" business. Wait. Let me correct that. He's the only one I personally know who has EVER pulled that "argument."

For most people who've served, you have to drag out of them that they indeed did. Not that they're ashamed of their service. Quite the opposite. I believe they simply see it as a far too important thing to pull out as a debating trick.

It's non-serving leftists who usually pull out the "chicken hawk" card. Oh wait. And John Kerry.

11:58 PM, January 26, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

"...has writted that the Iraq war is "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them..."

I blogged about this article some time ago. Don't you think that perhaps this comparison is perhaps a bit much... I mean lets get real. Anyone who proclaims such a comparison is a nut:

First, I reject the notion that the destruction of the Roman legions in the Tuetonberg was in fact a foolish war... Instead this loss was a tactical error made by the Roman general, Varus, who trusted too much in local guides to lead them through the forest where they were ambushed. This mistake has little to do with the strategic decision by Augustus to pacify the german tribes, a decision which was not foolish.

Second, if the ambush on Rome was a foolish mistake as you say, how could the war in Iraq compare to dozens of more obvious foolish mistakes in history. Are we to assume that Iraq was more foolish than the folly of the Somme or Stalingrad. Certainly, Iraq is not more foolish than Duke Reginald's hasty march into the desert with his Templar army to face Saladin, thus losing Jeruselam to the muslims. Or how about the French army at Agincourt or Potiers. Or Napoleons attack on Egypt... less foolish than Iraq?

I could go on, but I will spare the masses....

11:59 PM, January 26, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

"...an enabling act was passed expanding the powers of the executive, dissent was suppressed so that no one could question the wisdom of the leader when he did what had to be done to meet the communist threats....

This is indeed true. However, you left out the part about the Nazi thugs (who never received more than 40% of the vote), who were patiently waiting outside (as the enabling act was passed) in case someone decided to vote against it. Other facts are also left out such as the various political murders, riots by the Nazis, break down in civil society, etc...

Any implication that the current administration is somehow following along the same path as the Nazis is outrageous and is also just plain dumb.

12:09 AM, January 27, 2006  
Blogger Federal Farmer said...

Acknowledging that the current administration would never misuse any power at their disposal, being preoccupied with keeping spending down and winning the multigenerational war on terror, nevertheless, conservatives should question whether we wish to establish the principle of unlimited executive authority, in the event that some future president may use these powers to oppress and silence the "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy." as unlikely as it seems. Like the president says, people do get sick of corruption and "throw the bums out" on occasion. Look at 1994 and Fatah.

In regard to Harsh Pencil, the context of the statement was that I would not fit into Sparta, or Prussia, but not because I'm a pacifist. However, I am not the first to mention relevant experience or credentials when discussing a particular topic, no matter what the subject is. And, the mention of military experience is quite frequent in politics, whether it's John McCain, Chuck Hagel, or, yes, Lt. Gen. Odom. In fact, I can imagine individuals in other fields, such as economics, ensure that their audience is aware of what the speaker would consider relevant background, such as having a Ph.D.

In that Neocons routinely engage in character assasination of anyone who disagrees with them, or declares them unpatriotic, its not unseemly to imply military service is incosistent with lack of patriotism.

As far as disagreeing about a particular policy by military members, the Army War College and the Command and General Staff College have put out some reports very critical of how the war on terrorism has been fought, including the belief in the democratization of the mideast.

We do seem to be accomplishing driving all of the oil producing countries into the orbit of China however. If that is strategic thinking, explain to me who it benefits.

1:27 PM, January 28, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

"...conservatives should question whether we wish to establish the principle of unlimited executive authority...."

I agree with Federal Farmer here. Although I am not as alarmed by the Farmer regarding recent activities of the current administration, I think it is helpful that people bring up the possible dangers of an overeaching executive (or Congress or Courts). The fact that it is brought up keeps people thinking about it and therefore it tends to moderate peoples behavior...which is a good thing.

"....the Army War College and the Command and General Staff College have put out some reports very critical of how the war on terrorism has been fought, including the belief in the democratization of the mideast....."

While this may be true, it is also true of every war. In fact people still disagree over tactical and strategic decisions for World War II. For example, there is constant debate whether Montey's delay at Caen enabled Patton's rapid breakthrough by chewing up German armor, or hindered the allies because of delay. Another example is the policy of "unconditional surrender." Some argue that this policy resulted in the deaths of an additional 50,000 American dead in Europe and the enslavement of Eastern Europe. Without this policy, Germany would have surrendered to the west (after Hitler was taken out), in late 1944.

Whether the middle east could embrace democracy is also an important debate. My problem with the critics, however, is that they offer relly no pragmatic solutions other than opposition to the Administration's policy. One of the faults with conservatism is that conservatives often become too cynical about things, which leads to "inaction." Inaction spells death for civilization.

Would paleo-conservatives have supported the agressive spreading of the Gospel in the 15-18th centuries in the new world? I think not. Yet, we owe everything to those who chose action over inaction in Christianizing America and the west.

Perhaps comparing the spread of democracy to the spread of Christianity is a bit much. Nevertheless, both require men of action to be realized. Bush...like him or not... is a man of action.

12:10 AM, January 29, 2006  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Goering never held the rank or title of "Air Marshall". He was "Air Minister" and later "Reich's Marshall" (the only one) but not "Air Marshall".
"Air Marshall" is a rank in the British Royal Air Force and equivalent to a three star general in the U.S. Air Force (that's Lt. General for you Paleo-cons). The advice of "Air Marshalls" is completely trustworthy.

10:51 PM, January 29, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

Great catch Air Marshall. Although, I believe that "Air Marshall" was also a rank in the Luftwaffe (at least it was translated as such).

I glossed over this comment by Feceral Farmer...

"...In fact, this foolish military adventure by a corporal resulted in the destruction of the political party..."

I think it's interesting to note that Hitler was one of the most (if not the most) courageous and most experienced and decorated combat veterans ever to lead a modern nation. He spent four years at the front and only stayed a corporal because he wanted to keep his job on the front (and refused to kiss ass). Toland describes the experience as follows:

"Four years of dehumanizing trench warfare had engendered in Hitler, as in so many other German Patriors, an abiding hatred of the pacifists and slackers back home who were "stabbing the Fartherland in the back."

I hate bringing it up because its wrong to use Hitler as a comparison for anything. However, ists worthi noting....

1:06 AM, January 30, 2006  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

I will have to check for sure but to the best of my knowledge the Luftwaffe used the "General" ranks, though they may have used "Field Marshall" for the top one. It interests me to note how strongly John Kline (noted Neo-con, not!) HATES to see the replay of the Vietnam defeatisim and gets very angry about it. He is a combat vet several times over starting with Vietnam and his son is now serving (willingly) in Iraq with the 101st (a helicoptor pilot like his old man). Can't acuse him of not having "been under arms". He also states from personal observation that things are going much better over there than you could understand from the news reportage. He thinks we are doing the right thing and wants us to stick it out.

8:42 AM, January 30, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I think your right. I think "Air Marshall" is a version of "Field Marshall" Considering that Goering carried a higher rank than a Field Marshall, he would have never carried that title.

9:18 AM, January 30, 2006  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Sloanasaurus, I just looked it up and the top Luftwaffe WWII rank was "Generalfeldmarschall". All other general officer ranks were the same as the German Army, that is various forms of General (Major General, Lt. General etc.) although they were not exact equivalents of ours). There was no "Air Marshall" or translation thereof, it is a purely British rank as far as I know. As I said, completely trustworthy.

8:59 PM, January 30, 2006  
Blogger Air Marshall said...

Sloanasaurus, a P.S. The RAF equivelant of "Generalfeldmarschall" would have been "Marshall of the Royal Air Force" (like our General of the Army or Air Force), not "Air Marshall." There was of course no British equivalent of "Riech's Marschall", not even the King held such a rank.

9:13 PM, January 30, 2006  

Post a Comment