Simplexity by Jeffrey Kluger. Hyperion Press
Do you have a cell phone that has more capability than you can ever use and all the buttons to go with it? And has an incomprehensible 150 page manual to accompany it. Been in a traffic jam on an Interstate highway only to arrive at a point where suddenly there is no jam nor a reason for it to have occurred in the first place? Ever longed to give your TV a good swat to make it work as we used to do in the days of black and white?
Jeffrey Kluger makes the modern world comprehensible, analyzing social and technological systems to reveal that ‘things that seem complicated can be preposterously simple; things that seem simple can be dizzyingly complex.’ As he teaches us about new discoveries in the study of complexity he makes use of the famous bell curve (although he does not call it that) where the X axis is complexity and the Y axis the movement from chaos and instability (a room full of gas) to robust and stable (a lump of carbon.)
In explaining the complexity of simple objects the author uses, among many others, the example of the simple wood pencil. These two paragraphs sum up the main thought of the book most accurately. The author recounts the harvesting of the wood, the mining of the bauxite for the aluminum sleeve, the carbon from the coal mine and the lab making the eraser - and behind each of these processes lies the making and using of the tools that allow those actions. He continues to delve even deeper into actions and accomplishments just as necessary to support the whole process; clothing, delivery systems accounting systems, etc. Mr. Kluger finishes his paragraph: “A vast industrial machine rises up, switches on, and at its far end , spits out ... a pencil, arguably oneof the most complicated objects in the world.”
I enjoyed this book immensely but it is not read quickly. As Jeffrey Kluger explains a concept you find yourself applying the thought to other situations you face in the day-to-day world and then nodding knowingly.
15 July 2008
23 May 2008
The upcoming election
Time to prepare for the onslaught of Democratic worldviews! It was revealing, to say the least, when the Democrats started squealing almost immediately after President Bush's comments on appeasement became news. While he certainly referenced no one, they were quickly on the defensive. Perhaps they are fully aware of how they are perceived as indeed appeasers!
21 April 2008
Shock and Awe
Baghdad has previously suffered shock and awe and it was long ago. First a little history: With the founding of Baghdad in 762, a little more than a century after the foundation of Islam, the Arab world found its metropolitan focus under the Abbasid dynasty of caliphs, who ruled as the titular head of the entire Muslim world. The Caliph also ruled as a successor to the Prophet Muhammad and was therefore the symbolic leader of all Muslims. Basically he ruled as both Emperor and Pope.
Baghdad was the city of Scheherazade, of Thousand and One Nights fame. For 500 years the wealth of the Muslim world poured into the city where the Caliphs lavished it on palaces, mosques, schools, private gardens and public fountains. It was a city of luxurious baths and overflowing bazaars. Serving not only as the center for its Muslim majority , the city served as the religious center for Christians, who erected churches, and a cultural center for Jews who built numerous synagogues and schools
In 1253 Mongke Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, having placed the Mongol empire on a solid footing, decided to pursue his grandfather’s aims in having a dual campaign against the Sung Dynasty of South China and the Muslim civilization of the Arabs and the Persians. Baghdad was the centerpiece of the latter campaign. Mongke Khan assigned his best general, Hulegu, to the task.
Getting there he had to first subdue the heretical Shiite sect known to us as the Assassins but that is for another story.
In 1257 Hulegu, in good Mongol fashion, sent emissaries to the Caliph with a list of legal grievances against him. If the Caliph did not immediately atone for his transgressions by surrendering, Hulegu would conquer his city and capture him. The Caliph scoffed. He said that the entire Muslim world would rise up and defend the city (sound familiar?) Neither God, he went on, nor the Muslim people would allow Baghdad to fall into the hands of the infidels.
Unconvinced of the Caliph’s power to speak either for god or the entire Muslim population Hulegu began to march towards the city. I shall not go into detail but Hulegu had three armies; his own Mongols, an army from Armenia and an army from Georgia (Russia). The main army approached from the north and east and the others from the north and west. Crossing the Tigris and Euphrates, originally thought to be great barriers to attack, very easily on pontoon boats.
The Mongols showed their traditional ability to improvise and use whatever material presented itself as a possible weapon. They chopped down the palm trees and used them as missiles they fired into the city. They dug a huge ditch around the city and backed that up with a rampart and began a terrifying bombardment of the city. Rockets, firelances, smokebombs, mortars were used. They had developed explosive devices able to hurl projectiles with such force they may as well have been using real cannons.
Being bombarded from a distance outside their range of defensive weapons had never happed to the Muslim army and it confused, frightened and frustrated them. Hulegu destroyed the dams and diverted the Tigris to flood the camp of the Caliph’s army and make them take refuge in the city.
After five days the Caliph surrendered. The Mongol army had accomplished in a mere two years what the European Crusaders from the West and the Seljuk Turks from the East had failed to do in two centuries of sustained effort. They had conquered the heart of the Muslim world. No other non-Muslim army would do that again until the arrival of the Americans and Coalition forces in 2003.
And neither God nor the entire Muslim population prevented it in either case.
Baghdad was the city of Scheherazade, of Thousand and One Nights fame. For 500 years the wealth of the Muslim world poured into the city where the Caliphs lavished it on palaces, mosques, schools, private gardens and public fountains. It was a city of luxurious baths and overflowing bazaars. Serving not only as the center for its Muslim majority , the city served as the religious center for Christians, who erected churches, and a cultural center for Jews who built numerous synagogues and schools
In 1253 Mongke Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, having placed the Mongol empire on a solid footing, decided to pursue his grandfather’s aims in having a dual campaign against the Sung Dynasty of South China and the Muslim civilization of the Arabs and the Persians. Baghdad was the centerpiece of the latter campaign. Mongke Khan assigned his best general, Hulegu, to the task.
Getting there he had to first subdue the heretical Shiite sect known to us as the Assassins but that is for another story.
In 1257 Hulegu, in good Mongol fashion, sent emissaries to the Caliph with a list of legal grievances against him. If the Caliph did not immediately atone for his transgressions by surrendering, Hulegu would conquer his city and capture him. The Caliph scoffed. He said that the entire Muslim world would rise up and defend the city (sound familiar?) Neither God, he went on, nor the Muslim people would allow Baghdad to fall into the hands of the infidels.
Unconvinced of the Caliph’s power to speak either for god or the entire Muslim population Hulegu began to march towards the city. I shall not go into detail but Hulegu had three armies; his own Mongols, an army from Armenia and an army from Georgia (Russia). The main army approached from the north and east and the others from the north and west. Crossing the Tigris and Euphrates, originally thought to be great barriers to attack, very easily on pontoon boats.
The Mongols showed their traditional ability to improvise and use whatever material presented itself as a possible weapon. They chopped down the palm trees and used them as missiles they fired into the city. They dug a huge ditch around the city and backed that up with a rampart and began a terrifying bombardment of the city. Rockets, firelances, smokebombs, mortars were used. They had developed explosive devices able to hurl projectiles with such force they may as well have been using real cannons.
Being bombarded from a distance outside their range of defensive weapons had never happed to the Muslim army and it confused, frightened and frustrated them. Hulegu destroyed the dams and diverted the Tigris to flood the camp of the Caliph’s army and make them take refuge in the city.
After five days the Caliph surrendered. The Mongol army had accomplished in a mere two years what the European Crusaders from the West and the Seljuk Turks from the East had failed to do in two centuries of sustained effort. They had conquered the heart of the Muslim world. No other non-Muslim army would do that again until the arrival of the Americans and Coalition forces in 2003.
And neither God nor the entire Muslim population prevented it in either case.
15 April 2008
Gen. Petraeus and Congress
From Gen. David Petraeus' opening remarks to the US Senate Armed Services Committee:
“ Security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional forces to Iraq.”
Last September Democrats were frothing at the mouth as they looked for reasons to declare "The Surge" in Iraq an abject failure.
Unfortunately for the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party, General Petraeus proved to be the military equivalent of Chief Justice John Roberts - intellectually honest and factually powerful.
Democratic Senators - whose staffs had labored for weeks to develop the "killer question" which would embarrass Petraeus - only served to expose the Senators to be the self-promoting, ill-prepared, unproductive academic pygmies they are.
Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had to sit through hours of political theater - mostly amateur political theater - while the Senators postured and the two men at the pointy end of the sword patiently parried.
At one point in the proceedings, Petraeus tried to explain to the Senators that they shouldn't look at the up-tick in violence over the past few weeks in isolation to the overall improvement of security in Iraq.
A significant percentage of Middle Eastern men have attended college in the West. It is not at all unusual to ask someone where he went to college and have him answer something like Colorado State.
The point here is, the bad guys understand the nature of the media. Over the past few weeks they have returned to their first principals: If you want to influence the Western press, toss rockets and mortars into the Green Zone where the Western press will report it.
The bad guys knew that Petraeus and Crocker would be testifying that week, so they increased their bad behavior to attempt to influence policy.
Obviously the American media were specifically interested in the questions posed by the three remaining candidates for President, John McCain, Hillary R.(!) Clinton and Barack H.(!) Obama.
On Fox news Rich Galen suggested that Obama needed a map to find his way to the hearing room.
This is the actual transcript, according to the Washington Post, of Obama's first question:
“Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you've been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?”
Read it again.
See? You can read that as many times as you like and it will not make any more sense than it did the first time.
Now say these words to yourself: President Barack H. Obama.
Make you feel comfortable?
Later in his questioning, Barack H. Obama asked this of Ambassador Crocker:
“Can you respond a little more fully to Senator Boxer's point?”
Let me tell you: If it weren't for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would be the dumbest member of the US Senate. So Obama depending upon anything that Boxer asked is an open admission of his lack of preparation.
The Democrats in Congress must take care that they are not seen as rooting for failure in Iraq.
Americans are, by our nature, optimists. We may be exhausted by this war, but we will never be so weary that we want our military personnel to lose.
General Petraeus is representative of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have answered the call to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given that, it is politically very dangerous for Democrats to try and paint Petraeus as anything other than a patriot.
But some will.
“ Security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional forces to Iraq.”
Last September Democrats were frothing at the mouth as they looked for reasons to declare "The Surge" in Iraq an abject failure.
Unfortunately for the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party, General Petraeus proved to be the military equivalent of Chief Justice John Roberts - intellectually honest and factually powerful.
Democratic Senators - whose staffs had labored for weeks to develop the "killer question" which would embarrass Petraeus - only served to expose the Senators to be the self-promoting, ill-prepared, unproductive academic pygmies they are.
Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had to sit through hours of political theater - mostly amateur political theater - while the Senators postured and the two men at the pointy end of the sword patiently parried.
At one point in the proceedings, Petraeus tried to explain to the Senators that they shouldn't look at the up-tick in violence over the past few weeks in isolation to the overall improvement of security in Iraq.
A significant percentage of Middle Eastern men have attended college in the West. It is not at all unusual to ask someone where he went to college and have him answer something like Colorado State.
The point here is, the bad guys understand the nature of the media. Over the past few weeks they have returned to their first principals: If you want to influence the Western press, toss rockets and mortars into the Green Zone where the Western press will report it.
The bad guys knew that Petraeus and Crocker would be testifying that week, so they increased their bad behavior to attempt to influence policy.
Obviously the American media were specifically interested in the questions posed by the three remaining candidates for President, John McCain, Hillary R.(!) Clinton and Barack H.(!) Obama.
On Fox news Rich Galen suggested that Obama needed a map to find his way to the hearing room.
This is the actual transcript, according to the Washington Post, of Obama's first question:
“Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you've been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?”
Read it again.
See? You can read that as many times as you like and it will not make any more sense than it did the first time.
Now say these words to yourself: President Barack H. Obama.
Make you feel comfortable?
Later in his questioning, Barack H. Obama asked this of Ambassador Crocker:
“Can you respond a little more fully to Senator Boxer's point?”
Let me tell you: If it weren't for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would be the dumbest member of the US Senate. So Obama depending upon anything that Boxer asked is an open admission of his lack of preparation.
The Democrats in Congress must take care that they are not seen as rooting for failure in Iraq.
Americans are, by our nature, optimists. We may be exhausted by this war, but we will never be so weary that we want our military personnel to lose.
General Petraeus is representative of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have answered the call to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given that, it is politically very dangerous for Democrats to try and paint Petraeus as anything other than a patriot.
But some will.
02 April 2008
Occupation
Interest in the Iraq war seems to have died down in the major media outlets. Depending upon your outlook it could be read as a reluctance on their side to reporting what are, in actual fact, gains resulting from the surge. But as the bitter primary fight now going on between Hillary and Obama continues to allow McCain to stand above the fray and appear statesmanlike some in the media have started to send a few barbs his way.
The Sunni-Shi'ite misstatement McCain made while on tour in the Mid-East proved to be a tempest in a teapot. The convolutions between those two Muslim paths, intertwined with the Wahhabism espoused by the Saudi Arabians will forever be a conundrum to the West. The basic fact remains : Jihadists are trained in Iran and Syria, regardless of their espoused sect, and are then dispatched to work their evil around the world.
I am afraid, however, that the Democrats will follow DNC Chairman Dean's twisting of McCain's statement concerning the "100 years in Iraq." Dr. Dean chooses to interpret the statement to the effect that the US would be at war in Iraq for that period. I cannot but believe that he is purposely doing so since evidence to the contrary lies in every history book. The United States has remained in a number of countries, acting as a bulwark and support. South Korea comes to mind. We have been there for over 50 years. Japan even longer and finally Europe. With those two our presence has extended for over 60 years. And I remind you of the tremendous economic strides all of them have made.
It is to our best interest in the Mid-East that we remain in Iraq. We will develop what is called a "Status of Forces Agreement" or SOFA, which will ally us with the country, give us access to bases, etc. We will probably even build a base or two as we have done in other countries. This gives us a stabilizing presence in the area which in turn provides another bulwark against terrorism.
As we prepare to endure the election year follies, misstatements and general obfuscation that will be rampant let us try to remember that all are entitled to their opinion but not to their own exclusive set of facts.
We are at war. Make no mistake about that. There are people who wish us nothing but ill for many reasons from religious differences to economic ones. They kill innocents with no compunction, send children and mentally challenged people wrapped in bomb belts to accomplish their nefarious works. After 9-11 President Bush told us that it would be a long, arduous path to victory. Americans accepted that but, in the way of all democracies, they have slowly fallen away in support of our task. Their freedoms entice them to the quiet life and they forget the need for arms.
Let me quote Ancus Martius who lived around 650 B.C.:
The Sunni-Shi'ite misstatement McCain made while on tour in the Mid-East proved to be a tempest in a teapot. The convolutions between those two Muslim paths, intertwined with the Wahhabism espoused by the Saudi Arabians will forever be a conundrum to the West. The basic fact remains : Jihadists are trained in Iran and Syria, regardless of their espoused sect, and are then dispatched to work their evil around the world.
I am afraid, however, that the Democrats will follow DNC Chairman Dean's twisting of McCain's statement concerning the "100 years in Iraq." Dr. Dean chooses to interpret the statement to the effect that the US would be at war in Iraq for that period. I cannot but believe that he is purposely doing so since evidence to the contrary lies in every history book. The United States has remained in a number of countries, acting as a bulwark and support. South Korea comes to mind. We have been there for over 50 years. Japan even longer and finally Europe. With those two our presence has extended for over 60 years. And I remind you of the tremendous economic strides all of them have made.
It is to our best interest in the Mid-East that we remain in Iraq. We will develop what is called a "Status of Forces Agreement" or SOFA, which will ally us with the country, give us access to bases, etc. We will probably even build a base or two as we have done in other countries. This gives us a stabilizing presence in the area which in turn provides another bulwark against terrorism.
As we prepare to endure the election year follies, misstatements and general obfuscation that will be rampant let us try to remember that all are entitled to their opinion but not to their own exclusive set of facts.
We are at war. Make no mistake about that. There are people who wish us nothing but ill for many reasons from religious differences to economic ones. They kill innocents with no compunction, send children and mentally challenged people wrapped in bomb belts to accomplish their nefarious works. After 9-11 President Bush told us that it would be a long, arduous path to victory. Americans accepted that but, in the way of all democracies, they have slowly fallen away in support of our task. Their freedoms entice them to the quiet life and they forget the need for arms.
Let me quote Ancus Martius who lived around 650 B.C.:
It is not sufficient for men who wish to remain at peace to refrain from wrong doing...but the more one longs for peace the more vulnerable one becomes. A desire for quiet is not a power for protection unless accompanied by equipment for war; a delight in freedom from foreign broils very quickly ruins men who are unduly enthusiastic over it.
Things have not changed in 2700 years.
Things have not changed in 2700 years.
01 April 2008
McCain and Kerry
There seems to be an effort afoot to smear John McCain by likening him to John KerryThis is from MSNBC.com's First Read blog:
Tomorrow I will discuss the slander concerning the "100 years of war."
The comparisons between McCain's '08 bid and Kerry's in '04 have been unmistakable: Both men, early on, were their party's overwhelming favorites to win the nomination; then they encountered trouble and got overshadowed by other candidates; and then--almost out of nowhere--they locked up the nomination. Now, as McCain today embarks on his "Service to America" tour across the country, there's another comparison between the two men: the emphasis of their military experience. . . .
But biography isn't everything: McCain's military service--including his five years as a POW in Vietnam--is without a doubt one of the central narratives of his life and his political career. It is also something that clearly distinguishes him from both Obama and [Mrs.] Clinton. But as Bill Kristol writes in today's New York Times, you can't win presidential on biography alone. "If voters had simply looked at the biographies of the major-party candidates, they would have chosen George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996, Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Instead, they rejected four veterans who served in wartime (and who also had considerable experience in public life) for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who had lesser résumés, both civilian and military."
I would agree: McCain's service in Vietnam is far from sufficient reason to elect him president. But Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean went further, issuing a statement disparaging McCain:
While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.
ABC's Jake Tapper notes that Dean sang quite a different tune four years ago:
"The real issue is this," Dean said in March 2004, when endorsing formal rival Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Viet Nam.Tomorrow I will discuss the slander concerning the "100 years of war."
27 March 2008
Vocabulary
I made a telephone call today to a store and, because I was speaking to their answering service and wanted a response, I told them that I would not be available between 12 and 1500 but what I really said was "I would be out of pocket" for that time period. My wife was concerned that they would not understand the phrase. Note that the term "12 to 1500" did not concern her. To me it illuminates one of the more interesting factors involved in carrying on a conversation with anyone and that is the size of what I shall call ones "working vocabulary."
We all tend to believe that a word is "unfamiliar" and therefore possibly not correct because it is not familiar to us. Given two people, each having a working vocabulary of, say, 9000 words, a close examination would show that each would have 250 to 300 words they know and use but that the other does not. The result is that when one uses a word out of that "personal" vocabulary the other considers him to be a snob and the reverse holds true. Each is convinced that the other is effete and trying to show off. Yet such is not the case at all.
When you are talking within your own group your vocabularies tend to be the same. In fact "in-jokes" can be summoned by simply mentioning a word or phrase. But to say the same thing outside of the group is to receive blank stares at best.
In a previous assignment 25 years ago my wife and I had to become fluent in the Indonesian language. It has now been over 20 years since we spoke it and most has been lost through lack of use. But we still have four or five words we use on almost a daily basis. They are very meaningful to us and save many additional words. To use them in front of anyone else would be considered snobbery of the highest order.
Who has not seen the stock British Colonel in an english farce who uses foreign words when ordering a drink or summoning servants, etc. An example comes to mind: E.F. Benton wrote a series of books some of which were developed into a TV comedy entitled "Mapp and Lucia." Set in the twenties, they have a Major who is constantly using the words "chota peg". He is the butt of the joke but is oblivious to it.
So when someone uses a word with which you are not familiar, don't take offense, take an interest. Say "I do not know that word, what does it mean" and learn something new.
We all tend to believe that a word is "unfamiliar" and therefore possibly not correct because it is not familiar to us. Given two people, each having a working vocabulary of, say, 9000 words, a close examination would show that each would have 250 to 300 words they know and use but that the other does not. The result is that when one uses a word out of that "personal" vocabulary the other considers him to be a snob and the reverse holds true. Each is convinced that the other is effete and trying to show off. Yet such is not the case at all.
When you are talking within your own group your vocabularies tend to be the same. In fact "in-jokes" can be summoned by simply mentioning a word or phrase. But to say the same thing outside of the group is to receive blank stares at best.
In a previous assignment 25 years ago my wife and I had to become fluent in the Indonesian language. It has now been over 20 years since we spoke it and most has been lost through lack of use. But we still have four or five words we use on almost a daily basis. They are very meaningful to us and save many additional words. To use them in front of anyone else would be considered snobbery of the highest order.
Who has not seen the stock British Colonel in an english farce who uses foreign words when ordering a drink or summoning servants, etc. An example comes to mind: E.F. Benton wrote a series of books some of which were developed into a TV comedy entitled "Mapp and Lucia." Set in the twenties, they have a Major who is constantly using the words "chota peg". He is the butt of the joke but is oblivious to it.
So when someone uses a word with which you are not familiar, don't take offense, take an interest. Say "I do not know that word, what does it mean" and learn something new.
25 March 2008
Iraq and who started the war
I am concerned about the apparent disappearance of the will to go to war with Iraq. After 9/11 there was a great deal of discussion as to what caused it and what we should do. Let me present a fact: a New York Times poll in March of 2003 showed that 74 percent of Americans approved of military action against Iraq. If memory serves sometime in October of 2002 Congress overwhelmingly voted to authorize war by a bipartisan 77 percent margin in the Senate and an almost 3-1 margin in the House.
We find now that the usual assertion as to why we went to war was based on the grounds that war was necessary neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Allow me to expand upon the facts; House resolution 114, which authorized war against Iraq, listed more than 20 reasons for going to war; destroying Iraq's WMDs was only one of the many reasons stated in the resolution.
Here's one that really frosts this fighter pilot's behind: Bush "lied" in referring to intelligence that Iraq possessed WMDs. Lets review: The Intelligence Services of every country represented on the U.N. Security Council, including Russia, China, and France found evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs. This was shown in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.
We went to war for the best of reasons: safety of our citizens, threatened by a a Mid-eastern tyrant determined to become the leader of a pan-arab Muslim society. The fact that he made us think he had WMDs and that he wanted to use them is his choice. To destroy him was our choice. And the correct choice it was.
Democracies always find it difficult to maintain a war. In later posts I will discuss the problems faced by the Greeks as they built the governmental outlook we now enjoy but that story is different from our present impatience with wars only in a slight degree.
But I quote Sun Tzu: "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not a lengthy campaign." We are paying the price that all democracies face for letting this war drag on.
We find now that the usual assertion as to why we went to war was based on the grounds that war was necessary neutralize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Allow me to expand upon the facts; House resolution 114, which authorized war against Iraq, listed more than 20 reasons for going to war; destroying Iraq's WMDs was only one of the many reasons stated in the resolution.
Here's one that really frosts this fighter pilot's behind: Bush "lied" in referring to intelligence that Iraq possessed WMDs. Lets review: The Intelligence Services of every country represented on the U.N. Security Council, including Russia, China, and France found evidence of Iraq's possession of WMDs. This was shown in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.
We went to war for the best of reasons: safety of our citizens, threatened by a a Mid-eastern tyrant determined to become the leader of a pan-arab Muslim society. The fact that he made us think he had WMDs and that he wanted to use them is his choice. To destroy him was our choice. And the correct choice it was.
Democracies always find it difficult to maintain a war. In later posts I will discuss the problems faced by the Greeks as they built the governmental outlook we now enjoy but that story is different from our present impatience with wars only in a slight degree.
But I quote Sun Tzu: "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not a lengthy campaign." We are paying the price that all democracies face for letting this war drag on.
24 March 2008
Premier Issue
Good day to you. This is my first of what I hope is many more blogs. Let me introduce myself, over and beyond what you see in the sidebar. I attended the United States Naval Academy and graduated before there was an Air Force Academy and they were asking for volunteers. Having watched my father spend 20 years at sea during 30 years of service it seemed to me that the Air Force's offer of becoming a fighter pilot for them was a wise choice. But even so, for me military service was not a job, not a profession, but a calling. Joining the Air Force (or any branch) was akin to becoming a priest but, thank goodness without the vow of celibacy but, in the early 50's, certainly included poverty! But on to other things.
I am fascinated by the election process this year. We treasure free speech and yet we hear about how terrible what is being said by various folks. But a quick review of history reveals that such sentiments are not new in the slightest. Almost every election is preceded by strong words and factional speech. It is really simply that we are far more aware of it thanks to such things as Blogs!
As you would expect I am not charmed by either Clinton or Obama. Clinton for her cheesy ethics and sense of entitlement, Obama for his very limited experience (He has voted "present" so many times on difficult questions that there is no there there as far as his positions are concerned.)
McCain is going to be my choice but I am not heartily in his camp even though we are USNA classmates. He has risen high but I remember what he was like back when we knew we knew all the answers but could barely contain our jejune approach to life. I do believe that he is the correct leader for us at this time. Please bear in mind that a President leads but cannot fully control the process. In other words, when the economy is great the President gets the credit, incorrectly, and when it goes bad he gets the credit too, again incorrectly. The same applies to foreign policy. But the President must voice the direction we are to follow, gather us together and make us aware of what must be done. I turn to my mentor Sun Tzu: "It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on."
I look forward to your comments.
I am fascinated by the election process this year. We treasure free speech and yet we hear about how terrible what is being said by various folks. But a quick review of history reveals that such sentiments are not new in the slightest. Almost every election is preceded by strong words and factional speech. It is really simply that we are far more aware of it thanks to such things as Blogs!
As you would expect I am not charmed by either Clinton or Obama. Clinton for her cheesy ethics and sense of entitlement, Obama for his very limited experience (He has voted "present" so many times on difficult questions that there is no there there as far as his positions are concerned.)
McCain is going to be my choice but I am not heartily in his camp even though we are USNA classmates. He has risen high but I remember what he was like back when we knew we knew all the answers but could barely contain our jejune approach to life. I do believe that he is the correct leader for us at this time. Please bear in mind that a President leads but cannot fully control the process. In other words, when the economy is great the President gets the credit, incorrectly, and when it goes bad he gets the credit too, again incorrectly. The same applies to foreign policy. But the President must voice the direction we are to follow, gather us together and make us aware of what must be done. I turn to my mentor Sun Tzu: "It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on."
I look forward to your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)