Hamas Prepares for War – 7.15.2008

Hamas is training, arming, and bracing itself for an Israeli incursion. That comes as no suprise to me, but I did find this interesting.

 ”Hamas seen using new Russian weapons to break Israelis’ will following invasion”

As you can see from the article, Hamas has learned from the tactical successes that Hizballah achieved in the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah War. Our enemy adapts yet we do not - a disastrous recipe for failure. I would also be interested as to how these Russian weapons made it to the hands of Hamas – simple black market or Russian support? I don’t suppose we’ll ever know for sure. One thing is clear: Ehud Olmert is acting in a similar fashion to Neville Chamberlain.

Olmert Says Peace Deal Close than Ever

He can’t seriously believe that can he?

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

The Co-Existence of Humanity…Leaves Much to Be Desired – 7.14.2008

This comment was left by Enditthinks on my post about the NPT:

My only point of contention with your blog is the fact that the United States has so many nuclear arms that is not even slightly comparable with any other nation besides Russia. There is no reason for us to have so many ways to destroy each other. Also Nuclear Deterrence is not the only way that security can be maintained in this world.

I also disagree with your idea that Man cannot learn and turn to diplomacy. With regards to the amount of war and violence in the world we are actually living in a very safe period of human history. Do not let the powerless terrorist have control over your logic. They do not have the capacity to damage the entire world like nation states do. There has not been a major war between nations states (besides Iraq which the US started for no reason) since the Vietnam war.

We have learned that it is better to coexist.

As of August 31, 2007 (the most recent article I could find) the United States has 5,736 active nuclear weapons, of varying model and capability. As of December 31, 2006 3,696 were operationally deployed. I could not find a breakdown of the number of Russian nuclear weapons, but I thought this article was interesting. As we can see, Russia remains a nuclear threat, and that is a threat we must be prepared to counter. The world slept during the run-up to World War II, and the result was disastrous. Complacency must not dull the edge of our swords; this isn’t paranoia but merely a cold realization of the, shall we say, unfriendliness, of the world.

Nuclear deterrence may not be the only way to maintain stability (and I never said it was), but it certainly helped during the Cold War. Granted that the Cold War is over, but the fact that such weapons exist can certainly help keep people in line.

The United States and Europe are enjoying a period of relative calm, not the world. Due to our civilization, the values that have been cultivated over the years, and the horrors of past wars, has the West learned to appreciate peace. I think that the sad fact is that enough people died and the devastation was so great and far reaching in World War I and World War II that Western people were shocked into peace. Ethnic cleansing works much the same way; stability occurs afterwards not so much that people appreciate each other, in terms of realizing the equality of their neighbor, but that the factions have been bled dry.

If the terrorist is powerless, then what was 9/11 ? The Madrid Train Bombings ? The London Subway Bombings ? What about the 11,452 Jihadist attacks since 9/11 ? A chronic ailment of the West has been underestimating the enemy it faces. This is just another example. Major wars between nation states may have subsided (for know) but history is cyclical. Who is to rule out that nation states could not once again go to war once more? Russia (to use one example) is certainly staying belligerent and we have to be wary of that. Additionally, the emergence of proxy wars – one nation state using another faction for their own ends – cannot be ruled out. We have seen it many times in today’s era. For example, Iran has been waging war against the United States and Israel by supporting Hizballah and the Shi’ite Militias in Iraq. If such matters were dealt with in an honest fashion, we would realize that the United States is at War with Iran. Instead, we obfuscate and dither, while the enemies of the world wait for us to weaken and falter in our step. They watch from the shadows as a hungry predator who is waiting for his prey to show weakness.

In short, some of humanity has learned to co-exist, but not all.  Until the day when humanity decides to lay down arms (and that day will never occur) there will be war and conflict. It is the sad reality of our existence.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

Sudan and Darfur – 7.10.2008

For as long as I can remember, there has been tribal war, mass rape, and rampant disease in Africa. Every once in a while, the amount of killing, bloodshed, and suffering reaches the attention of the oh so wise International Community. The United Nations and all of its associated Councils and Committees convenes and “denounces” the dictator in question, shows “disapproval”, or issues “non-binding” resolutions. If the bad behavior continues, then the all mighty sanctions are unleashed. Sometimes the United Nations even throws together a Peacekeeper Force – often a hodge-podge coalition of the unwilling – and deploys them in a combat zone. 

Sometimes, these forces are effective and others they are not. My knowledge of UN Peacekeeping missions is still limited, so I will focus on two I am familiar with.

SUDAN AND DARFUR

There are two missions that the UN is currently operating:

Sudan 

To be generous, going by the article, we will say that there are 15,000 UN personnel in Sudan. 10,000 are military personnel, who are tasked with:

a. A stable Sudan capable of conducting a peaceful referendum 61/2 years after the Mandate in South Sudan and Abyei.

b. The ability for South Sudan to determine Sudanese unity or peaceful secession.

c. The ability for Abyeito determine unification with Bar el Gazhal or separate status within North Sudan.

d. Provision for a stable environment in Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State to allow the peoples of those States through consultation come to an agreement that will be the final settlement of the political conflict in their State.

Sounds rather grand doesn’t it? Is it achievablethough? I do not believe the mission is achievable, not the money or manpower that the UN has committed. This raises the question – is the investment in men and money worth it, if from the very beginning it is acknowledged that the mission can’t be accomplished? Again, I would say no.

Sudan is the 10th Largest country in the world, 2,505,813 km2.  IFthere was actually civilian infrastructure in place (roads, airstrips, hospitals, towns, etc) then the mission would easier, but save for a few areas there is no infrastructure. And where the rebels live is tribal badlands. That means any force you send out in pursuit of these rebels has to equipped for the travel and you have to be able to resupply them while the combat force is out “hunting”. This means you need helicopters, fuel, pilots, mechanics, parts, etc. All of this gear has to arrive in a timely fashion, and the mechanics have to have the experience to actually fix the machine. 45 countries are contributing Peacekeeper forces to the Sudan mission – many of the countries are SouthAmerican, Asian and African Countries, which leads me to doubt their competency. Britain, Australia, and Germany are on the list along with other small European countries, and I have confidence in their armed forces, but confidence doesn’t win wars. Cohesion of force and logistics, combined with the proper tactics and strategy, win wars.

Cohesion of force will be impossible with this Peacekeeper Force. The language barrier and the technological barrier are two reason why. Imagine how many interpreters there have to be – what if some are killed? Immediately the cohesion and ability to combine arms is affected. African mechanics may not be trained to work on British or American helicopters, which they would almost certainly be using. Your pool of qualified mechanics just shrunk, which means the others will be worked that much harder. For instance, a damaged helicopter has to land at Point A. Point A has no mechanics cleared to work on the machine; that means that the helicopter has to be transported by land to another location, or another mechanic has to travel to Point A. Welcome to logistics.

Because of these issues, I doubt very much that the UN Mission will even be minimally successful in their stated strategic goals. The Western countries who signed on no doubt had good intentions, but good intentions can bite you in the ass:

“No good deed goes unpunished”

When you commit men and resources that will ultimately be wasted, because you lack the political will to go all the way, then you do every man you send to war a grave disservice. You relegate them to merely being a tool to boosting your political reputation.

Darfur Region

As you can from the map, the Darfur Region is fairly large. The United Nations plan a force of 20,000 – half of which would be African troops – but currently has deployed only 9,065. How can you control as big an area as is Darfur with 10,000 troops? You can’t! For the sake of brevity, I will refer you to what I wrote about Sudan proper; the same lessons still apply.

In the News:

Africa – War on the Rescuers

A Thin Coat of Blue – Important. Read It.

7 Peacekeepers Killed In Darfur Attack

Heed the lessons of war. Few do, to our detriment.

Mike Grant – Samnite Gladiator

English Law and Shari’a Law – 7.8.2008

Fantastic. Great Britain continues to commit cultural suicide in the face of Islamism.

Surrender! by Cal Thomas

Sadly, this is a continuing trend. Honor Killings in the West, though God forbid the MSM call them that, have been more visible of late.

Honor Killing

Comments on Shari’a by David G. Littman

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – 7.8.2008

“40 years later, nuclear states still haven’t kept promises” is the title of an op-ed written by Tad Daley, which was published in The Baltimore Sun. An excerpt outlining the basic premise of the column:

The grand bargain of the NPT was that the non-nuclear weapon states agreed never to produce or acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapon states agreed eventually to get rid of theirs. No, that is not a misprint. On July 1, 1968, our government committed itself to negotiate the elimination of its entire nuclear arsenal – and, with the other nuclear weapon states, to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth forever. Indeed, the nuclear weapon states have repeatedly restated their intention to fulfill that promise. The treaty entered into force in 1970. At the 25-year NPT Review Conference in 1995, the nations committed again “to systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons.” At the 30-year NPT Review Conference in 2000, the commitment was reiterated. And the World Court concluded unanimously that the NPT had created “an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.”

The author continues, saying that the delay of nuclear states in disarmament will only encourage proliferation as the “have-nots” – to put it crudely – say “Screw it, we’re developing nukes”. Thus, the United States and other nuclear powers must disarm in an attempt to stop an inevitable nuclear Armageddon. The author offers up North Korea and Iran, countries which are trying their best to procure and/or build nuclear weapons. He compares the above countries to a hypocritical United States which is developing new types of nuclear weapons and new delivery systems for them.

I have several issues with this reasoning.

THE NPT AS UNREALISTIC

Does anyone honestly believe that any signers of the NPT would actually disarm? The very idea flies in the face of everything we know about mankind’s behavior. Particularly in a world where the dogs of war run rampant. Some disarmament has occurred, but not complete disarmament, which is what the NPT called for. How does one abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth forever? Are we to take that command literally? If so, then we would have to kill anyone with knowledge of how to construct a nuclear bomb, wouldn’t we? As long as that know-how exists, whether in the minds of men or the hard drive of a computer than a nuclear bomb could be built.

Also, all one has to do to legally circumvent the NPT is simply not sign the document! All signers would then disarm, since they “negotiated in good faith” but several players would then have nuclear weapons. Most likely these states would try to exploit their new power over their former equals. Nuclear weapons can be a deterrent. Simply look at the Cold War and the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction. If nuclear weapons weren’t in play, I think armed conflict would have occurred on the scale of World War II.

NUCLEAR POWER

It is easy enough to change a peaceful, civilian nuclear power program to one that has military applications. Ask India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran. India, Pakistan, and North Korea shocked the world with their first nuclear tests, and it won’t be long before Iran does as well. Because of the similarities and crossover capability of civilian and military nuclear programs, do we ban nuclear power? If that would be the case, then France would be forced back to square one, with regards to power supply. Who would support the complete and total ban of nuclear power?

FALLIBILITY OF MAN

The thing about Treaties is this:

Treaties can be signed and then ignored, circumvented, forgotten; a Treaty only has as much importance as the signers give it. Hitler and Stalin had a Treaty once - remember? Remind how that played out.

Another excerpt:

That will provide that many more opportunities for a nuclear warhead to find its way into the hands of a nonstate nuclear terrorist. Or for a hot political crisis between nuclear-armed adversaries to spin wildly out of control. Or for some rogue military officer to push the nuclear button out of malevolence or mental unbalance.

I mentioned earlier (playing Devil’s Advocate) that to uphold the NPT to it’s fullest extent anyone with knowledge of how to construct nuclear weapons would have to be killed. Enter the A.Q. Khan Network. Khan and his associates were geniuses of how to export nuclear know-how to the highest bidder. They built their own factories, they routed their goods through countries with the least security restrictions, and assembled the goods on site. They could offer an enrichment facility to any country in a matter of months. How would the world cope with these men in a non-nuclear world? Everything done was clandestine, and below the radar. The world remained ignorant of Khan for many years, until he began making too many mistakes. Don’t you think that men like Khan would thrive that much more in a world where no one has nuclear weapons?

To conclude, the lack of built nuclear weapons does not end the danger. The danger comes from those who would use nuclear weapons in an irresponsible manner. Hence why Iran and North Korea are being opposed (somewhat, anyway) in their quest for nuclear weapons.

CONCLUSION

I believe the NPT to have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The world will never completely disarm, because of fear and mistrust of our fellow man. We are fallible beings, prone to vice and violence. The United States should not compromise it’s security for the sake of an unrealistic treaty that no one listens to.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator

The Economist – 7.7.2008

Several months ago I purchased a subscription to The Economist. On the whole, it is an excellent magazine and I would encourage people to subscribe. It’s journalistic style favours a libertarian viewpoint on most matters. However, as informative as it is, I do disagree with some of its, shall we say, “conventional” conclusions. This post will be a combination of a review of some of The Economist’s positions and my take on them:

OPEN BORDERS

The Economist favors “freedom of movement” among nations by the inhabitants of earth. The concerns of some of us about immigration (illegal and legal) are simply dismissed as xenophobia and social backwardness. Real security concerns are brushed aside, with phrases such as:

The Department of Homeland Security is budgeting $12 billion in the next fiscal year to guard the frontier against job-seekers (and the odd mythical terrorist walking to his target).

This seems to conjure in the mind of a casual reader that a terrorist (jihadist) would actually walk to his target (the United States) across a desert carrying everything he would need. To the uninformed, the first though is incredulity and possible agreement with The Economiststaff. However, I would argue that such an oversimplification is downright dangerous. For a sleeper cell to operate successfully, a support network would need to be put in place. This would likely entail “clean” agents entering the United States legally and establishing themselves. Once in deep cover, they begin laying the foundation; buying pre-paid cell phones, propane tanks, weapons, ammunition, radios, etc. Anything an actual attack cell would require.

The members of the attack cell would likely be “unclean”. For example, they probably attended camps in the tribal badlands of Pakistan. The attackers would likely be treated as pawns, since their ultimate, final act would ideally be a suicide bombing. These members would arrive in as secret a way as possible, since their identities would be more likely to be known to the National Security infrastructure of the West. So literally walking across the desert doesn’t sound that far out after all, does it?

The real danger to the West is the embedded support networks that are most likely already in place. Uproot those cells, and real progress will be made.

ISLAMISM IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES

The Economist seems to be locked in the Cold War mentality so pervasive in today’s age. When dealing with the “Palestinian Issue” as it is sometimes referred to (though not by The Economist) more oversimplifications are made, and simple answers that don’t challenge conventional wisdom are provided. For example, Fatah is time and again referred to as the secular rival to Hamas. Rivals though they are, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority - Fatah’s legislative arm – is not secular and still desires and teaches the destruction of Israel.

Additionally, it oversimplifies Islamism in Algeria as well.

Few analysts expect a return to anything like the full-scale mayhem of the 1990s, largely because armed Islamistradicalism has lost much of its appeal.Many also discount the importance of a move, two years ago, by the main surviving guerrilla group to align itself formally with Osama bin Laden and rebrand itself as “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb”.

 Armed resistancelost it’s appeal because Muslims were the target. This is a common and misunderstood trend in the world today. People seem to take the rejection of Al-Qaeda by other Islamist groups and the “everyday” Muslim as a significant breakthrough. I believe differently. Al-Qaeda practices the Islamist ideology of takfir. Under this rule, Muslims can be declared apostates and / or Enemies of Islam for:

1) Colluding with Western Governments

2) Not practicing Islam fully

3) Colluding with an occupation force

4) Not joining Jihad

Ak-Qaeda is hated by Saudi Arabia not because Saudi Arabia rejects Islamism, but because Al-Qaeda has the House of Saud as a target! If Al-Qaeda abandoned the ideology of takfir, it would be embraced by those who once rejected it! Why? The only difference between Al-Qaeda and other Islamistgroups, and those who give tacit approval to to Jihad is the target. As long as the Western Infidel is the target of Islamism, then all is well and good. However, when the dogs of war ravage the homes of those who tacitly support, or even openly support Jihad, it becomes a different story entirely. As for Algeria, an interesting article for readers to consider.

Algeria has a tradition of tolerance of other religions but went through a decade of near-civil war between the secular army and radical Islamist groups in the 1990s. Religion is a sensitive political issue in the country.

Well I’m glad there is a “history of tolerance” – too bad it seems to be KIA. Notice how “sensitive” religion is in countries dominated by Islam, yet in the West there is so much more plurality? Might have something to do with the U.S. Constitution and the difference between Christian-Judeo culture and Islamic culture. Granted that Christianity and Judaism do not have perfect historical records, but necessary reform occurred and even still occurs when some deem it necessary. The same cannot be said of Islam.

CONCLUSION

There have been other issues, but that is to be expected. It always good to hear a difference of opinion, so that one does not stagnate himself. On a whole, I respect The Economist. They present the news in a professional and thorough manner. The same cannot be said for other Media that we currently have.

Mike Grant — Samnite Gladiator