Peacefull protests
It is very clear in my mind that the reason Sydney-siders are being inconvenienced by APEC security can be laid directly on the shoulders of the sub-species promising to disrupt proceedings. Greenpeace, the Stop Bush mob of half-wits and every anarchist and radical in town are ready to attack; plans made, marbles purchased (damn! police horses are quarantined), metal inserted in faces and dreadlocks daubed with dirt and grease.
Human rights lawyers are likewise ready, legal notepaper and cameras in-hand, to record the results of some idiot attacking police to the point of reaction, hoping to have their day in court denigrating the system that nurtures them. Believe me, there will have been planning sessions with legal advice suggesting, say, spitting in police officer’s faces – ‘that always invokes a response’ and don’t forget, when you’re thrown in the paddy wagon, scream out some obscenity and resist arrest so the police are forced to physically overpower you – the tabloid cameras will love it and record what we will later call ‘Police brutality’ for all to see.
Tabloid TV are ready to record it all and set lower standards in media responsibility while left-wing journalists are busy penning articles based on Howard/Bush being to blame.
Behind the scenes good men and woman will work hard to make life better for those are deprived, they will look at global warming and develop between them a rapport that will allow for speedier resolutions of world problems. The Police and Military will work long hours to allow them to do this all in a maelstrom of media attention on the wrong issues.
While some of the left will be barracking for theses idiots, some even potential cabinet ministers, I remain hopeful that the NSW police have been given sufficient powers and moral support to lock the bastards up.
I do look forward to the water canon being deployed. The sight of some of these grubs getting their first shower in months is appealing.
Facebook
Twitter
have a look under the bed, those pesky reds are comming to get you.
I killed the last pesky reds who come to get me but these fools are just that, fools
Obviously your kind of fool Mal.
Dear Kev
Are you so naive to think that this level of security would not be taking place but for the protestors.
Wake up to yourself kev – You must have forgotten about the war on terror etc.
Peter
No
Peter, the war on terror does not require that half a city be walled off.
A crowd of idiots on the offensive during the war on terror certainly does.
I thought the attitude of the rioters/ratbags was well put in a footnote I read on a leftist’s site: “See you at the next one”.
There’s a mixture of groups within the protestors – from hardline activists to kids with a cause. Problem is there may be somebody toting an M-72 amongst them. These are light and easy to conceal – I carried one in Vietnam. Nine of these things are still out there, and that’s worrying the organisers.
Protesting in itself is a sign of a healthy democrary, despite all the name calling and finger-pointng. When I was younger and sillier (or wiser maybe) I felt the caress of a baton on my scone during the demonstrations against the Springboks in Brisbane. At that time, I was just back from SVN and feeling angry at my reception, so was a bit inclined to be agin the government. Didn’t do me any harm, and I like to think it made a difference.
Whilst we’re talking security, it’s worth noting that the Indonesians have just announced the purchase of two Kilo class submarines from Russia. These are quiet and with the right kit, not too far behind our Collins class subs in capability. Malaysia is also buying Flankers (fighters) which will outperform the Superhornets which Brendan Nelson has ordered. (See my blog 1735099 for a brief analysis). Seems the government might have been blindsided by the need to protect us against assymetric threats, and have neglected more conventional problems.
Ah, so you have a ‘Springbok Tour’ campaign ribbon…explains a lot. Flankers may outperform a superhornet (I wouldn’t know) but I’m pretty sure Diplomacy, pilot quality, infrastructure, high grade intelligence and alliances are also important in the mix. Indonesians have been buying Russian for decades since I was a keen young soldier studying them at RAAF Lang School. They didn’t worry me then and don’t now and let’s face it we have a good tag on what’s going on in Asia.
Kev
My dad served in the RAAF in New Guinea in WW2, and when he was alive told me stories about a funny little plane called the “Zero”, which wiped the floor with everything sent up against it until the advent of state-of-the art American aircraft later in the Pacific campaign.
The accepted wisdom in the late thirties was that the Japanese were physically inferior, and their technology no match for what was available to us through the Brits. There were plenty of RAAF aircrew who paid the price of this complacency, and plenty of young Aussies who didn’t return after the fall of Singapore. We either learn from history or we suffer the consequences.
Incidentially, this is first purchase of Russian technology by Indonesia since the fall of Sukarno and “Confrontasi”. You can never seek to justify the past – just hope to learn from it.
Cheers
Take a few flankers and put them up against AMRAAM armed Super Hornets, supported by AWACS, Tankers and OTHR and they will lose, badly.
Even in the air, combined arms warfare wins v a 1 dimensional threat.
The me109 was a better plane the Spitfire but as Kev said “pilot quality, infrastructure, high grade intelligence and alliances” made the difference.
The mig15 had better clime rate and turning circle as well as superior numbers yet the Sabre had an over whelming kill ratio.
Guess why?
Gary
For a well-researched article on the Flanker in our near-north go to –
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
The conclusion is well worth a read, if you don’t have time to go through the lengthy analysis of performance and capability.
All your points about infrastructure and training are valid, but this same infrastructure and training is improving at a rapid rate. Ín this game, nothing “is”, the paradigm is shifting.
I don’t have a lot of faith in our intelligence capabilities, given recent experience in Iraq, particularly when the pollies (of either persuasion) don’t like what they’re hearing. It’s better when it’s not filtered through Washington or Westminster – we did a better job in Timor.
I’ll never “guess why” – learnt a long time ago first as a teacher and then as a soldier, to assume nothing. You’ll just have to tell me.
1735099
“I don’t have a lot of faith in our intelligence capabilities, given recent experience in Iraq, particularly when the pollies (of either persuasion) don’t like what they’re hearing.”
I’m not sure if your faith or understanding of Australia’s intelligence capabilities is entirely up to speed. The various agencies do all right, regardless of what you see in the media. Which in the main, is usually wrong. As for your point about Timor intel, what exactly is your point?
Indonesia’s air force could be armed with F35 and F22, we would probably still wipe the floor with them. Pouring money into pilot training may be seen to be the decisive edge when placed against new acquisitions, but in reality, they will have to raise, train and sustain a workforce that realistically struggles with the concept of clean streets and sewage. The cultural effects of power distance and high collectivism within Indonesian culture perpetuates a military that refuses to devolve strategic or tactical command to lower levels. This is a hallmark of military forces that lose.
I presume your lack of faith in “intelligence” about Iraq is based on WMDs. If so, you need to read more. You have to have an ideological hatred of Bush/Howard to believe all that the press has said on the matter.
CB’s last para is spot on.
Maybe I am a little harsh here, but I find it amusing when a former other rank whose military experience ended about forty years ago espouses opinions on high level strategic equipment acquisitions.
No problem with Bob (aka 1735099) voicing his opinions, there’s an old saying about that, but don’t bung on the ability to do an IA on the SLR as some sort of qualification to judge the requirement for current high tech military harware.
Just makes you look like a fool.
My father was seconded from the RAF to the RMAF during the early sixties in order to assist the newly de-colonised Malays to build an air force from scratch.
He was quite proud of the young officers he trained until several years later when most were convicted of crimes associated with the dodgy purchase of Lockheed’s widow maker.
Anyone who has had a tour at Butterworth knows what the standard of maintenance in the RMAF is like – poor.
CB is correct – it doesn’t matter what the hardware is if the people maintaining, driving and importantly employing it are working from a low base.
The same goes for the 1980’s vintage Kilos – the RAN has a long history of excellence in submarine warfare – our skippers are considered the equal of UK and US sub commanders and the matelots do pretty well too.
Submarine warfare is ingrained in the RAN’s culture, the Indonesians will take many years to develop the ability to sail their boats competently let alone fight them.
Can’t see the connection between clean streets and an effective military. Nor has collectivism ever been a barrier to military success – look at the Israelis. Kibbutzim made very good soldiers. My experience in a rifle section was as close to a collective as I’ve known. Leadership and commitment are also pretty important.
There is also a distinction between ideology and strategy. Marxist-Leninist philosophy is one thing, centralized command and control is entirely another. The Indonesians have a long way to go, but they’re no longer trained in Russian doctrine – they’re just buying their equipment. As you’re probably aware, we’ve done our fair share of training the TNI. We’re also talking about a 15 year timeframe. I’ve got four kids, so future national security matters to me.
Australian military intelligence in Timor was, and is very effective, generally because there is no third party involvement unlike Iraq. In terms of intelligence failure in Iraq, I don’t take much notice of the media, but look at the record of the last four years.
The Coalition are fighting blind. There is no human intelligence (HUMINT) worth a cracker. The issue is not whether WMDs exist or existed, but that the Coalition couldn’t find them. By any measure, this is a pretty major failure of intelligence.
Kev – my only ideology is compassion taught me by a career with disabled kids and their families. I don’t hate. Glad I brightened up your day PQ, but it occurs to me that the problem is not my background, but that my opinions don’t line up with yours. Anyway, for what it’s worth I was never much good at TSOETs.
Having read the conclusion of the article, let me guess – its written by Carlo “an airforce equipped with souped up F-111s can defeat anything, disband the other services” Kopp.
Carlo is an F-111 fanatic, he is of the opinion that F-111s can do everything and nothing else can do what F-111s can do. he is wrong.
His “ability of F-111s to deliver bombs/missiles” calculations always ignore one minor fact. losses – you don’t have to lose many planes per mission before the force is unviable.
If you want to take out the airfields and parked Flankers, cheap, expendable cruise missiles are a better option than F-111s (as a matter of interest the last time I saw an operating budget for the strike wing, it was $700 mil PA), @ $2 mil a cruise missile, you can put a lot of serious boomage on target after a few years of procurement at the current operating budget and with that sort of procurement, you can look at building a factory here, assuring supply and then leveraging it into UAV production later.
“I’ll never “guess why” – learnt a long time ago first as a teacher and then as a soldier, to assume nothing.”– 1735099
I lost interest in engaging people that blindly contradict themselves about 8 months ago. Not worth the effort, especially when they use alleged good deeds for emotional trump cards like you.
The Coalition are fighting blind. There is no human intelligence (HUMINT) worth a cracker.
That’s a big call. It has been quoted as an original problem but I can’t see it being the case now.
Can’t see the connection between clean streets and an effective military.
C’mon Bob! Development from 3rd world to 1st…Secondary education for the majority…..Uni for some….populace more employable….commercial investment follows….income increases…taxes paid….road works improve….infrastructure improves…general knowledge of hygiene improves…population travel see other standards demand the same… population base now educated and a better pool for recruitment.
You and I saw it in Vietnam, CB saw it in Timor and others elsewhere. Third world are canon fodder – 1st world techno soldiers. Following from what Harry says…I see your Flankers and raise you a cruise missile…
Kev – my only ideology is compassion taught me by a career with disabled kids and their families.
Not in the 1970s it wasn’t – it was pre-family and disabled kids. You had to have a mindset then that took you onto the streets to protest. But then I would think your motivation was passion, not ideology, a passion that shows in your later career
No big deal, I didn’t like apartheid either, but in the absence of an answer to SA problems I wouldn’t consider stuffing up a good game of rugby by following the behaviour of some of those on the streets of Brisbane. Remember them throwing flares onto the field at Ballymore?
You might not have been ideologically motivated but the people running the protests were. The same people had just got over the euphoria of the Vietnam Moratoriums that Jim Cairns was running to help the communists.
Their sons are in Sydney today warming up for a weekend of violence. and anarchy.
Kev
Thanks for the psycho-analysis. Do you charge the common fee?
Gary, talk to Kev about that significant event 8 moths ago. I’m sure he could help.
173etc. Indonesia is incapable of generating an iterative civil workforce capable of maintaining basic civil flying standards. As such, they have been collectively banned from a vast array of international airspaces. If they seem manifestly incapable to be trusted flying crates of rubber dogshit into Paris or Hong Kong, what makes you think they are capable of running Flankers against Singaporean F5’s or AS Super Hornets and F111’s?
“Can’t see the connection between clean streets and an effective military.” And going on some of your previous analysis based on flawed readings and conjecture, you probably never will.
CB
Opinions exactly like these (for Indonesians read Japanese) were being expressed in pubs across the country in the late 1930s – we didn’t have blogs back then. It derives from a kind of racial hubris that is embedded in our national psyche, and resulted in the bloody disasters that characterised the early part of the Pacific campaign in World War 2. I’ve traveled enough in SE Asia to know that the rate of development in many of our neighbours is phenomenal. The issue is not current threat, but potential threat.
More recently, the Americans demonstrated the same kind of hubris when they invaded Iraq. We saw the result of that, and there are many families in the USA who are grieving as a result. Even if the campaign is ultimately successful, the intelligence failures that occurred early in the piece were disgraceful.
My point is that in matters of national security, political dogma, racial stereotyping and sheer bloody arrogance has no place. It kills people.
Something else that my travels have taught me is to respect our Asian neighbours, and that you can respectfully disagree with someone without putting them down. It does nothing for your argument.
Let’s address several of your points. Firstly, insinuating that I’m guilty of racial hubris regards Indonesia is neither relevant nor germane to the conversation. It’s a fact that Indonesia has an appalling aviation safety record and is banned from numerous international hubs worldwide. There is no racial component to this, various safety audits and investigations of incidents have highlighted specific cultural factors that were identified as being endemic to national culture, power distance and collectivism being just two. Within Indonesian society, as with various other Asian societies, they exhibit traits that lead to a collectivist mindset and a willingness to abrogate responsibility fo the individual in favour of direction from authority.
How this equates to racial hubris is beyond me. Could it be that your points lack validity and you resorted to a generic ‘racist’ analogy? Certainly looks that way.
As I stated, regardless of the rate of development you perceive in Asian societies, until they fundamentally change the structure of their society, Indons and their ilk can buy all the high tech equipment they like. It will invariably end up unservicable in a hangar or warehouse due to an inability to keep sufficient trained people, logistics or operational focus on the strategic goal.
Secondly, your claim that America invaded Iraq on the basis of hubris? Unmitigated bullshit. I won’t even begin to explain the rational basis for removing Saddam from power if all you can see is blinded by your own prejudicial view of alleged intelligence failures and US hegemonic interests.
CB
“Hubris”- excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
If the Commander-in-Chief landing on a carrier emblazoned with a “Mission Accomplished” banner isn’t hubris, then perhaps you can suggest a better description.
The “rational basis” for removing Saddam from power – that he stockpiled WMDs – has been completely discredited.
The other “rational” basis – that he was in league with Al Qaeda – has also been discredited – most recently by Petraus himself in an answer to a US congressman. Al Qaeda is now firmly entrenched in Iraq – primarily as a consequence of American action.
The intelligence failures aren’t “alleged” – they have been acknowledged by the Whitehouse, and by George Bush on more than one occasion.
Rumsfeld’s gone. Bush soon will be – the Republicans are on the slide. The American people have seen through the “unmitigated bullshit”.
In the news today a roadside bomb attack on a Bushmaster – thankfully no one hurt. Bushmasters appear to do the job as do th ASLAVS, pity the poor poms being sent into the Afghan fray in thin skinned land rovers and Royal Marine tracked vehicles designed for cold amphibious operations.
See this site http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/ and scroll down through the posts to see one take on the UK governments seemingly incompetent handling of military equipment purchases.
I was often disappointed with equipment and clothing issued to me, from plastic waterproofs issued in Townsville that caused me to be wetter on the inside than a cyclone could get me on the outside to a variety of packs and other load carrying kit designed to cause crippling injuries.
And then there were the lowest tenderer boots …. nuff said really.
However, today’s diggers seem to be well looked after, especially when deployed – good quality body armour and armoured vehicles, bit of a change from the green ‘pixi’ shirt I had between me and the Musorians.
“If the Commander-in-Chief landing on a carrier emblazoned with a “Mission Accomplished” banner isn’t hubris, then perhaps you can suggest a better description.”–1735099
Oh! Please! I haven’t read that meme for years.
It was a carrier on its way home after operation Iraqi Freedom.
Why hubris. The mission of Iraqi Freedom had been completed and as Commander in Chief he was paying homage to the guys who had accomplished it in such an amazing manner. It was a photo op and and was done to place due emphasis on the servicemen. The media turned it around and tried to ridicule Bush but if Clinton had still been president what then?
No mission…terrorists still attacking…Iraqis still being shredded…Bill still being serviced by Monica and no media mention of the word ‘hubris’.
“If the Commander-in-Chief landing on a carrier emblazoned with a “Mission Accomplished” banner isn’t hubris”
I thought Bush looked shit hot in his ‘action man suit’ actually.
I agree with Kev & Gary – Bush didn’t put up the banner, members of the ship’s crew did as their mission was accomplished.
This sort of tripe ranks up there with plastic turkeys and the “oh look Bush is wearing an Army windbreaker and he’s not a soldier, oooooh he’s got no right to wear that” and all the other petty commentary from the ill-informed.
Kev at al
“The mission of Iraqi Freedom had been completed.”
The invasion had been completed – but Iraqi’s weren’t free then and aren’t now. It’s a bit like parading the trophy at half-time, if you’ll excuse a fairly lame sporting analogy.
“No mission…terrorists still attacking…Iraqis still being shredded…Bill still being serviced by Monica and no media mention of the word ‘hubris”.
Unless I’m dreaming, the terrorists are still attacking – Madrid? London? 2005 Bali bombings? 655000 Iraqis have died since “Iraqi Freedom” began, millions have become refugees, and I’m really not all that interested in Bill Clinton’s sex life.
“I thought Bush looked shit hot in his ‘action man suit’ actually.”
“Action man” was a toy wasn’t it? Pretty apt.
Now we have Alan Greenspan – died in the wool republican – telling us what we already knew – the war is about oil.
The mission was completed and the Iraqis are free. It doesn’t matter what words you use the Mission was completed. Terrorists are still trying to murder them but they are free and have the basis of a democracy. The next mission will take years – it could’ve taken less but the left keep on trying to enforce a withdrawal on a timetable that has nothing to do with reality on the ground.
The terrorists are not attacking the US mainland and 655 000 dead is bullshit. The original quote comes from Lancet, that well known UK Medical magazine that attacks conservative governments because they are. Slipped into Howard this week actually. They arrived at the figures by extrapolation and/or cluster sampling and the figures have no similarity with Iraqi Ministry of Health, The UN nor other non associated bodies. They were deliberately released, according to the author, just in time for the last election. Between the first and second survey, a period of 24 months, Lancet claims 556,000 killed or 23,166 per month or 720 a day, every day for the period. Bigger than D Day or Tet? I don’t think so.
Currently the figures are in the high 700s per month
In a phrase – unmitigated politically motivated bullshit.
No one is interested in Bill’s sex life but the comparison holds. He fires a missile at an empty tent and entertains interns while Bush actually does something.
You are marvelous, you guys. The media trolls around the world looking for someone prepared to mention the words “it’s all about oil” and then quote the hell out any such quotes. The worlds oil supplies could have been guaranteed without doing anything – just collect the oil while Saddam kept on murdering his people.
It wasn’t an ‘Action Man suit, it was a flying suit – a prerequisite for flying a plane. The troops appreciated it and that was all that matters. However, if it winds up the left and other assorted Bush haters, and it obviously did, then well and good – distracts them what really matters. While they mutter and rant and rave about inconsequential bullshit the people who actually do things can get on with doing them.
“The mission was completed and the Iraqis are free.”
That depends on your definition of freedom, Kev. As I see it, “freedom” is a great deal more than the capacity to participate in the election of my government. Amongst other things, it equates to quality of life, security, availability of choices, capacity to self-actualise, and capacity to influence my community. I would also argue that having a say in the election of my government doesn’t necessarily guarantee these capacities.
Of these, security is the most critical. Abraham Maslow had a bit to say about this in 1943, and his theory has seen wide acceptance. If you’re not safe, you’re not free.
Withdrawal is not the answer. We’ve lit a fire, and can’t leave before extinguishing it.
Maybe it’s time to accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (Downloadable on http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf)
The thrust of the recommendations is to move the emphasis from the military, and towards diplomacy (Recommendations 1 – 7), and to involve the UN (Recommendations 7, 10, 14 & 17). It’s a good read.
“The terrorists are not attacking the US mainland….”
As an Australian I take little comfort from the fact that security on the US mainland has improved. I’m rarely on the US mainland. Mick Kielty, one of the straightest shooters around was hauled across the coals when he stated the bleeding obvious, that our involvement in Iraq has made Australia more of a target than it was prior to the war. Young marginalized Muslims are taking the notion of Jihad seriously, and there’s a fair chance that sooner or later some ratbag will succeed in killing a lot of Aussies on home soil.
“The next mission will take years – it could’ve taken less but the left keep on trying to enforce a withdrawal on a timetable that has nothing to do with reality on the ground.”
I agree that withdrawal is not the answer. We’ve lit a fire, and can’t leave before extinguishing it. This is where the recommendations of the ISG come in.
“and 655 000 dead is bullshit.”
What figure should we be comfortable with Kev? 100000, 200000….? Irrespective of what figures you’re prepared to accept, the death rate has risen since the “Mission Accomplished” sign went up, and is trending upward from a pretty horrific base since.
The following is an extract from the assessment section of the ISG report –
“Attacks against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces are persistent and growing. October 2006 was the deadliest month for U.S. forces since January 2005, with 102 Americans killed. Total attacks in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006. Daily attacks against Iraqi security forces in October were more than double the level in January. Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month”
The ISG provides a blueprint to get us out of the quagmire, but I can’t see Bush taking it seriously – and this is where hubris comes in. If the Americans see themselves as bastions of freedom and democracy, they need to engage in multilateral activity. Bush presents a macho image – he wears flying suits on aircraft carriers – and his diplomacy reflects this. I don’t think he has any of the qualities of a statesman, and is out of his depth. Thank Christ he wasn’t in the Whitehouse during the Cuban missile crisis.
Bush’s attitude reminds me very much of the Yanks I encountered in Vietnam. One GI wanted to punch me because in conversation in a bar in Vung Tau I had the hide to refer to American cars as “Yank tanks”. I have a great respect for American people and their institutions, but a national psyche which is inward-looking and arrogant, and can’t abide any opinion except its own is dangerous. This hubris is not a characteristic of most Americans, but it is a feature of the clique holding power and making policy at the moment.
Actually the gist of Alan Greenspans comment (according to A. Greenspan) is that the war should have been about oil, he is very specific to state that he NEVER heard anyone in the Bush admin say that the objective was to secure the oil – but in his opinion it was so vital to the world economy that it should have been.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greenspan_verballed/
Try again.
re the 600,000 dead Iraqis – just how stupid do you have to be to believe that figure? – it is more casualties than the allied combined bomber offensive (round the clock carpet bombing for 3 years) inflicted on the German population in WW2 – 1000 bomber raids with 4000lbs -8000lbs loads of HE, mixed HE and Incendiary per plane – dropped in such a pattern to take the roofs off with HE, then drop the fire bombs into the opened buildings to start the fires and bombs set to delay fuzing to keep the emergency services off the streets til the fires really got going and you think a small scale operation like that in Iraq could rack up more kills?
BTW, that casualty figure for Iraq would also mean that roughly 1 in 30 Iraqis were killed, with little or no impact on society in general and no official notice by the Iraqi medical system, nor a boom in the undertaking industry. yep. thats pretty credible.
You aren’t just a conspiracy theorist, you should really seek professional help if you are genuinely unable to spot the most absurd of claims. still, I have a slightly used harbour bridge for sale if you are interested…
It’s not a question of how many casualties I see as acceptable; it is the fact that the figures are bullshit; were released for political purposes and that educated people still quote them.
I find that both astounding and depressing. Oh, and the figures are tending down, not up.
Forming and holding an opinion based on a conversation with a private GI in Vietnam (and obviously other incidences) is poor rationale. I too have met people of all races who are stupid, or drunk, but I don’t base my assessment of the nation on such a small survey. Rather I look at hundreds of years of history and read books by the respective nations authors and from a much wider perspective have formed the opinion that there is much more positives than negatives when discussing our American cousins.
WW2 in Europe and the Pacific…the Marshall Plan….the Cold War…the long fight against communism (eventually won)….the fight against terrorism etc need to be viewed in the same slide show that you revisit of Bush landing on an aircraft carrier.
Clearly the Left and ALP supporters in general will never back a Republican but this turns to an irrational hatred that drives all vision from their minds. Because the US have a Republican in the White House everything, and I mean everything he does or says, is considered bad… evil… stupid… ineloquent, and that simply isn’t so.
The words better describe his detractors.
The West aren’t staying in Iraq because we have lit a fire and can’t leave until it’s extinguished. We are still there because the task is enormous and was never going to take a month or two. Post war Germany and Japan took years, if not decades to democratize, why should the left demand Iraq be settled in months?
The Iraq Study Group report is out of date and irrelevant – try reading this one, it’s only a week old.
http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/pet091007.pdf
It tells a very different story and 1735099 read the whole thing don’t just cherry pick the bad bits…
I’d sack the guy that made the charts though, pretty ordinary work.
1735099 if you are interested in a different perspective to the tripe thrown up by most conventional media try:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
http://michaelyon-online.com/
Again it’s not all good news, but a close up look at operations in Al Anbar.
Harry
Thanks for the link to the original article about Greenspan’s comments. There’s no substitute for going to the source – although the primary source is Greenspan’s book, which I’ll get my hands on ASAP. My current read is Hans Blix – “Disarming Iraq” – which I’d recommend to anyone with an interest in recent history.
An interesting byline in Woodward’s original article is his praise of Clinton – who is obviously persona non gratia on this blog…. wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that he’s a Democrat??
On Clinton –
“While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Greenspan’s 531-page memoir.”
And on the Republicans –
“Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party’s majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year’s elections. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” Greenspan writes. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither.”
The point that Greenspan makes is that under Bush, pragmatism gave way to ideology –
“When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, “I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions.”
The unexpected directions, I assume, were influenced by the Neo-cons. I can’t be sure of this until I read Greenspan, but it would be a safe guess.
Oh…….. my mental health. It’s OK I think…. I’ve had a free analysis from Kev. He’s very good.
Kev
My opinion of Americans has not been formed by one conversation with a pissed GI. I’ve developed it over decades through a range of experiences, including being influenced by American missionary priests way back as an adolescent in Mackay in the sixties, working with American teachers that we recruited with gusto back in the seventies, studying American history and literature at post-graduate level at U of Q in the eighties, befriending a community of Yanks when I was in Townsville, also in the eighties, (they enjoyed the fishing) and more recently taking every opportunity when travelling in Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam to connect and talk with them. They speak English – makes it easier. If I can talk my wife into it, I’ll cross the Pacific next year and drive coast to coast, which should be both enjoyable and illuminating.
The few I met in Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam during the past few years were interesting. What I did notice was that American backpackers (the young ones) had a better knowledge of the outside world than Americans I met of my generation, but it was limited to countries they had personally visited. In general the average Aussie knows a hell of a lot more about the outside world than the average Yank. The other generalization (perhaps a dangerous one on my part) – was that they took themselves so very seriously.
The only conclusion I could come to was that this was a product of their education system.
It’s an issue when we understand the profound influence the US exerts on world affairs through projection of power. These people vote – or at least fair proportions of them do.
In a discussion about irrational hatred – I’ve trolled back through this blog without success trying to find any comment remotely critical of the Republicans, (or the Coalition – for that matter). Unless you count Peter and Mal, who don’t contribute regularly, I couldn’t find it. Apart from being dead boring, it’s also exactly how you characterise “ALP supporters and the left”.
There’s a bit of pot and kettle happening.
1735099 Little peter (not Peter W) is the vary essence of irrational hatred. He once proclaimed he would beat up his dad if he voiced the same views as Kev.
He is a barrister and a product of Australian higher education.
I make no apologies for the stand of this blog. It is mine and reflects my opinions. I don’t imagine I know everything or that I always hold a majority view but I do know it forces me to read and evaluate current affairs and write about them. Beats watching tabloid TV or the left wing bias of the ABC/SBS.
Dead boring but it’s my dead boring
I don’t have a high opinion of Bill Clinton. His ethics and morals were poor and I see no reason to imagine they have changed. The fact that there were positives from his time in office will always be offset, to me anyway, by images of a young impressionable, opportunistic woman and her stained dress and the many questions relating to his ethics.
I don’t hate him though.
I knew your opinion of Americans would be based on more than one episode. In fact I allowed for that in my text to save you justifying it all but you missed it. From your initial entry into these comments I figured, by your comments, that you were anti American. We have all met Americans whose knowledge of the world is poor in our estimation but that is hardly the fact with the top echelons of power.
There is currently an amazing number of Australians who are taken in with the bells and whistles of Rudd’s cliche driven policies and don’t think to question them. Stuck-on ALP or Coalition supporters aside, there are too many swinging voters who don’t read a newspaper, watch tabloid TV and are shocked by the revelations they see there. They know nothing of yesterday and care little about tomorrow.
These people vote – or at least fair proportions of them do.
Personally I think the current administration in the US has a plan and the Democrats don’t. I don’t agree with all aspects of the plan but I recognize they are doing something about the abysmal situation in the Middle East and given the chance, a democracy in the middle of that chaos, could only have a positive outcome.
I don’t have a problem with your opinions. In fact I’d fight to allow you to have the right to express them, whether I agree with you or not. What I find hard to understand is the lack of shades of grey expressed on the blog. Perhaps I’m a bit perverse, but I’ve often argued against my own opinion simply to drill down to the truth, and perhaps because I enjoy nothing so much as a good argument. Can’t do that on this blog, as nobody would argue with me.
The other issue I have with the blog is the divisive nature of most of the discourse. It appears as if there are two teams, the right and the left, and everyone is expected to line up with one of the two. I’m a contrary bastard, and don’t see myself as belonging to either side. I‘d be happy to come off the bench and play for either team.
This doesn’t mean I don’t have strong opinions. I do, particularly where the issues are the future of my kids and the security of my country. What I object to is spin, hypocrisy, and the culture of our political debate which is largely driven by a thirst for power instead of a pursuit of principle. I would have thought that this is where blogging has a place – it short circuits all this crud* and creates an alternative. (*please note spelling)
Can I suggest a different political culture – one where we vote not for a party but for a local member? I know it’s naïve, but it’s what our founding fathers intended. It is interesting to conjecture what kind of governance we’d have if every single voter followed this principle.
There are two politicians I admire – both Independents.
One is Peter Andren, Independent member for Calare, tragically stricken with cancer which will end his political career. Peter always demonstrated true independence which requires courage.
The other is Bob Katter, Independent member for Kennedy. For five years in the early nineties I worked in a regional educational administration job in Mt Isa. Bob’s Office was across the road. Every now and again you would see his big hat approaching, with Bob advocating politely and earnestly for one of his constituents. Often he would have the constituent in tow. The fact that I worked in a state jurisdiction and that Bob was a Federal member was neither here nor there. Usually it could be sorted out at local level, and Bob would always have the best interests of his constituent in mind, irrespective of race, political persuasion or sobriety.
We could do with a parliament wall-to-wall with Independents who saw their prime responsibility to their constituents rather than to an ideology.
I’m iffy about there being too many independants. It would be like the three lieutenants in a company having a vote on how to attack the bunkers.
I agree Bob Katter does contribute but I lean to the consensus theory of leadership where each player has his say, the team leadership or leader having heard these varied opinions then makes a decision. All are then bound by the decision.
It is all well and good for an Independent to have his constituents best interests in mind but he is also charge with having the best interests of the nation/state in mind and where one conflicts with the other I think the national interest should take precedence.
Case in point. SE Qld needs more water storage and someone will have to make the hard decision that will most probably be bad for a local electorate. The Independent member will listen to his constituents and advise cabinet but the dam must be built.
Anyway, I doubt there would be many Independents. Man by nature generally aligns himself with one camp or the other believing that on balance they represent his thoughts and ideas more than the other team and that he is prepared to endure the odd ideas he doesn’t agree with.
I’m in that bracket. I don’t for one moment believe that the liberals are perfect but overall I believe they are best for the economy. I also think that to look after the disadvantaged we need a sound economy to do it properly. There are a lot of other reasons I back them but these two have some sway.
I decide that when I was young and have seen no reason to change.
I knew Katter years ago when I was involved in politics and in fact was often mistaken for him on flights north – we are physically similar and although my writing may not reflect the fact we are also similar in our approach to life.
“The other issue I have with the blog is the divisive nature of most of the discourse.”–1735099
I’m sorry you can’t take what you give out.
A different point of view would be welcome, instead we get endless pontificating, tired talking points mostly based in self entitlement and need for simplistic interpretations of complex situations. Go to the ABC online chats if that’s what you want, where pc sensibilities are protected.
And for once to have a person that deserves the high ground they think they hold.
“Pontificating….”
White smoke!!! I’ve always suspected I was infallible.
“white smoke”
No 1735099, white phos…
Left 100 – 10 rounds for effect…
Good one Peter W
Peter W
No chance – always keep my head down. Incidentally Michael Yon’s Online Magazine is great – especially his use of image.
1735099 – a new dispatch up today, great pics and a detailed description of the conditions troops endure in Iraq’s heat.
The MSM do us a disservice with their shallow coverage of Afghanistan and Iraq.
If it doesn’t happen with camera range of their comfy Baghdad hotel balconies MSM reporters just aren’t interested unless it’s an anti-coalition Bush or Howard bashing yarn.
Yon’s dispatches are graphic and immediate, and it sounds as if he is well and truly “embedded”.
Maybe the following isn’t typical, but I’m assuming that the Australians in Iraq exhibit better fire control and discipline than what he describes in the unit he’s travelling with –
“POW! – A shot was fired. Where it came from I do not know, but it seemed to come from the palm groves to our left, where the other American platoon was covering our left flank. An American Soldier opened fire into the palm grove where the other platoon was. I’d never seen anything like it. It was hard to imagine he did not know where our other guys were. Other members of the platoon descended upon him like hawks. He laughed. He was sent back to the Bradleys.”
There’s no doubting his courage, and that of the GIs he’s with, but it sounds like he’s at as much risk from friendly fire as he is from the insurgents.
Seems like not much has changed in thirty-five years in terms of how the Yanks operate.
1735099 – sure a stupid example of indiscipline and in my encounters with US soldiers during the seventies I saw similar poor standards displayed, however, as Yon intimates in the conclusion of his dispatch US soldiers have an extraordinary amount of battlefield experience these days that such errors are few in number.
Yon wrote:
“I asked the Soldier sitting in front of me, “Why did that guy shoot into the palm grove?”
Anger flashed over his face as he stared at the soldier sitting to my left. “He’s sitting right beside you, why don’t you ask him?” I hadn’t realized he was sitting next to me.
“Why did you shoot?!” I asked accusatorily, as upset as the Soldiers were, but he just treated the event like it was a joke. He was laughing about it, talking about how he could get sent home. But he was the only one laughing.
When the ramp dropped, Soldiers from other Bradleys piled out and started yelling at him. They were still yelling at him as I started walking away in the scorching dust.
It must have seemed strange, like the heat had finally gotten to me. But after two days and two missions where mistakes were made, where some men died and others dropped from a heat so intense that it wavered and blurred the already fine line between friends and enemies, where new alliances between Soldiers and former enemies were tested under the fire of combat, these Soldiers were not so tired or so worn from the heat to let their standards flag: they were all over that Soldier who did.”
The US has rotated hundreds of thousands of men and women through Iraq and Afghanistan, they are the most battle experienced and best equipped troops on Earth (although quite large numbers of Brits and some of our guys are up there too).
US officers from platoon commanders to divisional commanders have fought their formations far from home in desperate climatic conditions against a determined and skilled enemy fighting in his own backyard and prevailed.
US NCOs once derided as poorly trained and lacking in self-reliance are now as tough and accomplished as their officers.
I don’t believe troops from any nation could prevail against them and I think the slurs they endured from Bin Laden et al have been well and truly repudiated – they haven’t ‘cut and run, they’ve endured significant casualties, but have kept “pushing through”…
I’m not a US sycophant or apologist, but if Iran or Syria wish to take them on it will be at great cost to those two provocateurs.