Just a little math about the Iraq war

While I’m sure that the Iraq war is the most important thing we could possibly spend our money on…. yeah right.

The Huffington Post recently posted that congress has arrived at an Iraq war funding bill totaling more than 163 Billion dollars.

A few things that could be done with that money.

• Give 2 million college students an 81,500$ scholarship.
• Give 4 million college students a 40K scholarship.

Yes, thats right, we could actually pay a full ride of about 15K at a state public institution for approximately 9 million students.  9 MILLION!!!!  Talk about a jumpstart to our economy, how much of a kick would 9 million more college degrees produce?

In case you weren’t angry enough, this Iraq war funding bill equates to 543.33 per person.  Thats right, you just increased your tax burden by 543$, or more likely, your childrens tax burden, or grandchildrens.

If you aren’t angry, you should be.

Thats right you don’t know, because you weren’t there man!

OK, so the other day, I was in a bar with a few friends and we ended up two steps away from a nice round of waltzing Matilda with this guy who basically claimed that we had no authority to speak on the Vietnam War because we weren’t there……man.

 The aspect of knowing war aside, sure, I will freely admit that there is no way that I can know exactly without a doubt every aspect of a war without seeing every aspect of that war firsthand.  However, I have some serious issues with this argument that empirical knowledge trumps reasoning in all cases.

First, by using only empirical knowledge (knowledge taken from experience), any given event will have a very detailed accounting.  However, this accounting is not neccessarily accurate.  Suppose that the person is scared, drunk, angry, horny, happy, or just plain stupid.  All of these emotions can easily cloud a persons judgement into distorting his or her account of an event.

Secondly, who is right?  Suppose I have three different accounts of an event which all differ equally?  Which one is right?  The one which merely agrees with whatever theory I am trying to support.  I guess that could work, seems to have worked for the Bush Administration.

Thirdly, my account represents a microhistory.  One small tiny piece of the entire story.  I can tell you about my personal experiences in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and they would be true stories, however, they would not reflect the same story as any other Marine, even those in my own unit.  And it is very likely that my account and personal history would be very different from the story an entire army or country would tell regarding the war.  Although, my account would be true, and so would theirs.

Take this simple test to determine whether you believe that a empirical evidence trumps reasoning: Take a fork, and stick it into your eye……Done?  Good, now post a comment and tell me how it feels, and then I will have an idea of how it feels, although I would not know with certainty until I stick the fork into my own eye.  Now, don’t use a knife, it might feel different, I’ll let a spork slide, since it does incorporate some aspects of a fork, spoon and knife.

What?  You didn’t do it?  Well then, that clearly means that you believe that reason is more important than experience.  You didn’t stick the fork into your eye because you know that harming your own body will cause pain, and that pain isn’t a good thing, and therefore, you shouldn’t do things which are likely to cause pain, i.e. sticking a fork into your own eye.

Of course, in retrospect, maybe I should have asked you to stick the fork  into your heart, or brain.  This would also be an effective solution to convince the population that reason is better than experience.  Even better, I should ask everyone to cut out their own tounges.

Now why would this have any impact upon the rest of the world?  Well, yeah, i’m an Iraq and Afghanistan vet.  OK, guess what, I can tell you first-hand that getting shot at sucks.  Its better than the alternative, of getting shot. or at least, so I would reason, I can’t tell you for sure, and I don’t really want to find out.  But did I really need to tell you that?

Big Al supports the Big O

OK, now for more reasons than this one, I now support Obama for President.  Heres why…

 Simply stated, he understands that only good can come from talking.  Given that last night he stated that he would readily meet with leaders of countries that are not ‘aligned’ with the United States.  OK, so Hillary doesn’t agree, yeah, well, she is wrong.  Again, simple, there are three results that can come from talking:

1.  A solution results, in which the US benefits and there is no war.

2.  A solution does not result, in which other actions must be taken, the worst being war.

3.  We arrive at a solution in which the other country, or the US, does not honor.  After which, we still have the option of war.

Without talking, meeting with, and negotiation, then we have removed one of our primary options for resolving conflict without military conflict.  Which leaves:

1.  War.

 By talking, we have not removed the option of later going to war if negotiations fail, or if the other country does not honor those negotiations, we have merely opened our options and allowed for another method for dealing with conflict.

Go Obama, and best of luck.

Just what I wanted for my Birthday

Well, I finally got what I wanted for my Birthday, Saddam’s head on a plate.  Sure, it may be a little simple, but I like simple, and I figure that a world leader is only entitled to kill 100,000 people before he deserves the death penalty.  I’m glad they gave him a traitors death instead of a heros’ death.  Hanging him for the killing of his own countrymen is retribution.

 Now the interesting part, this means that people should be held accountable for the deaths which they cause.  So what about other world leaders who cause the deaths of their own countrymen?  Sure, maybe not directly, but what if they act in a negligent or reckless manner and cause people to die? (yeah, i’m talking about the pre-war planning for Iraq).

But here are my predictions, the North and South of Iraq will experience a small peace dividend as a result.  There will be some small amount of peace in these regions.  The middle of Iraq, the Sunni part, will experience an increase in violence for a short period following the holiday of Eid Al-Adha, presumably because of Saddam, but in reality because there is no other good reason to fight.

Of course, this doesn’t change what we need to do in Iraq, get out of the cities, do what armies are designed to do, fight in the open, leave the urban fighting to the police.  Set up border security and kill anything except bedouins trying to cross the border and therefore provide a secure environment for the Iraqis to form an Iraqi government.

North Korean Nukes

The North Korean Nuclear test, although bad for the environment, is a great thing for national security of both the US and the Korean peninsula.

The sad news is that North Korea gaining nuclear weapons merely means that we can’t invade, and are forced to use non-military actions such as diplomatic, economic and information to coerce the regime.

No other country has used weapons of mass destruction as effectively as the United States, our use of biological weapons literally wiped a race of peoples off the face of the planet (Native Americans and smallpox blankets).  We only used nuclear weapons as a means to more quickly end World War II.

North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons presents a few options which The Prince would be proud.  One, in order to aid in the defense of other surrounding nations, we can offer greater military assistance to South Korea, Japan, Russia, and the Phillipines.  Second, we give North Korea a simple message: “use nuclear weapons against anyone, and we’ll bomb you into the stone age.”  North Korea will be unable to use their weapons without ensuring their assured destruction.

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ensures that all countries who use Weapons of Mass Destruction will be completely destroyed, committing effective suicide.

The true threat does not come with nuclear weapons that can be attributed to a particular country, where the doctrine of MAD can apply, but with non-national groups where we cannot determine who detonated a nuclear device.  Without determining who produced a nuclear weapon, we cannot use MAD to ensure proper deterrence and retaliation.

How to win, or lose a war

This isn’t anything new, but somehow people seem to always forget it.

A war is not just raw untamed violence, it is the enforcement of a political decision by force.  And like any political decision, it is a multifaceted engagement between no less than two powers.

And when you’re considering a political decision such as invading another country, you must consider the goals involved.  The stated goals of the current war in Iraq are to remove Saddam Hussein and the Baath regime, and establish a free and democratic Iraq.

The ability to actually complete this goal in concept (ie establishing democracy at the end of a gun) can be debated elsewhere.  What I take issue with is the single faceted approach to warfare that the current administration has taken.

In any war, and in fact any interaction between at least two powers, there are four methods that one power can exert influence upon another power.  They’re very simple, and there is even an acronym for it: DIME.

1.  Diplomatic – This is basic dialogue and give and take.

2.  Information – The use of information to influence another power, for example, the democratizing power of the Internet gives everyone a voice in the world (me included).  Or propaganda, like what Osama Bin Laden does so well.

3.  Military – Fairly self explanatory, do what I say, or I’ll kill you and bomb your country into a parking lot and send in Marines to paint the lines.

4. Economic – Because sanctions work so well, and they actually do.

All four of these methods can be used in any interaction with other powers.  And they are used all the time even when there is no declared ‘war’.

The issue currently revolves around the inability of the United States to utilize all four aspects of influence to win the war in Iraq.  Its plain enough to see that in a stand up military fight, the US can destroy any other military power in the world, maybe even two of them.  The anti-US forces, in their many forms, have wisely chosen to forgo direct military action and utilize both asymmetric warfare in the form of roadside bombings, and more importantly to use information warfare against us.

If the US is intent on winning the war in Iraq, (which is debatable) then we need to establish programs and actions that ‘wage war’ on all fronts, including economic assistance, information warfare (which in our case, should be nothing more than telling the truth), and diplomatic measures designed to garner support both within Iraq and outside Iraq.

C. Rice (no I can’t spell her first name) wasted a perfectly good chance to establish some inkling of a relationship with Syria.  Although tragic, the bombings at the US Embassy provided an opportunity to praise the actions of the Syrian security who prevented a tragic loss of American life and establish a relationship with Syria which could lead to more stability in both Iraq and Lebanon.  There would have been no harm in acknowledging the assistance that Syria offered.

A