(part one) (part two) (part four) (part five) (part six) (part seven) (part eight)
(Part three in an ongoing series...the summary I ran by a few lawyers last summer is reprinted below...)
August 28, 2007
Re: E---- and Reasons for Considering Litigation:
(I)
E---- spent a few weeks at Pomerado Hospital with a condition known as hemiplegic migraine. An accurate approximation of describing this illness would be to draw analogies from stroke victims, as her condition was very similar: Half of her body ceased to function normally; starting from severe headaches, and eventually manifesting itself throughout the right side of her body, with drooping muscle in the face (no facial control on the right side), fingers turning inward (claw-like) in the right hand, little feeling or control over the muscles in the left leg and so forth.
Before this unfortunate incident in April, E---- had a very active and full life: she was set to get her master's degree in June, anticipating being able to start work on her doctorate in the fall and worked as a marketing director at a local cabinet company.
It's a very rare condition. This was her third incident in as many years, and the worst of the three. Doctors generally seem perplexed and have never been able to do much other than treat the symptoms with large doses of various drugs, and this is predominantly composed of steroids and narcotics. In fact, it took her neurologist several days to admit that such a thing as Adult Onset Hemiplegic Migraine even exists if not transferred genetically, though Elizabeth's mother had tried to convince him that that was the case.
She spent 13 days in the hospital from late April to early May, 2007, and went back in from May 11 to the 19, with one trip to the emergency room in between.
Upon release from Pomerado Hospital on May 19, 2007, E---- was sent home with various medications to be prescribed. Primarily pain medication, steroids to be decreased in the coming months, and a drug called Depakote. This drug was prescribed with the intent of reducing the chance of future migraines, and with the admonition that a greater risk of seizures would ensue if the drug was not taken.
Depakote is a drug designed to affect the brain. It is also prescribed for Epilepsy and bipolar Disorder.
This drug, ordered by her neurologist to be Depakote, and which was written on the discharge papers as Depakote EC (which is the same thing, with "EC" meaning enterine coated and therefore designed to begin dissolving once reaching the intestines), was incorrectly written as Depakote ER by her primary physician when he filled out her necessary prescriptions.
Depakote ER (extended release) is a drug whose strength is engineered so that it is to be taken just once a day, and generally at a 500mg dose. The incorrect prescription read "Depakote ER, 500mg, three times a day." This is what her primary physician wrote, what CVS Pharmacy filled and what Elizabeth began taking. Because of this oversight, she was now ingesting a daily dose, of the stronger version of the drug, three times a day, seven days a week.
Copies of all paperwork are available.
(II)
By June 6, 2007, the high levels of steroids had been significantly reduced (she was on 1000mg a day while in the hospital), and it became obvious to family members for several days that something was gravely wrong with E----. Her mother recalled another neurologist's administration of a drug called Topamax, administered with the same intention, that had E---- either in a zombie-like state or completely terrified all the time. That drug was stopped immediately. Now, like symptoms were presenting themselves, and calls of concern were placed to the neurologist, who ordered that her bloodwork and a liver panel be done. The family decided to remove one of the three prescribed daily doses that day, noticed an immediate change.
E---- was still grappling with recovery on many levels: home oxygen machines, walking short distances without the aide of a walker or wheelchair, etc.
Calls were made to the neurologist regarding the results of the bloodwork, not returned, and visits with her primary physician, previously scheduled, were attended. During one of these in late June, the bloodwork results from the neurologist had been sent over beforehand, and it showed a Depakote level of 18. By his own admission, her primary doctor had no idea what this meant. More calls to the neurologist's office ensued, and the family was told the earliest appointments were in late August / early September.
Insisting on being seen, E---- and her mother went to the neurologist's office on July 27, 2007, where - it was to become blatantly obvious - the neurologist looked at E----'s bloodwork, the tests he himself had ordered, for the very first time. Immediately, he began to repeat that he would never prescribe Depakote ER. When asked to define what levels of Depakote are considered normal, he stated between 4 and 12. Queried on what E----'s level of 18 meant, he responded "toxic." He changed her prescription from the incorrect (and "toxic") Depakote ER, 500mg, three times a day to Depakote, 250mg, three times a day (which, incidentally, is exactly half of the dose she was supposed to have been prescribed upon leaving the hospital May 19). And he wanted E---- to have her bloodwork done again in a week.
By July 29, 2007, copies of the prescriptions were obtained from CVS, and it became clear that it was her primary doctor (the internist who, by his own admission, is completely unfamiliar with the drug Depakote) who had written Depakote ER by mistake. Her neurologist, though having prescribed a dose that was written and filled incorrectly with a much stronger drug, is not negligent is this regard, but he chose to ignore pleas to look into this matter from when the family first asked on June 6 (other than ordering bloodwork to be done), to when he saw the results for the first time July 27. It remains an open question just how much irreversible damage would have occurred if, following the prescription as written and the lead of the doctors, the family continued to feed E---- three doses of Depakote ER for the seven weeks between June 6 and July 27.
The results for the bloodwork taken the first week of August, after the change in dosage on July 27, and obtained after repeated calls to the neurologist's office during the second week of August, showed E----'s Depakote level to be 6.4 and within normal parameters. Again it was blatantly apparent that neither the neurologist nor any subordinates had bothered to look at those results until a family member's final call of inquiry stressed the need to clarify whether the status of one of the patients under the neurologist's care would still be considered "toxic." in the neurologist's opinion.
(III)
The family believes that the negligence and malfeasance of her two physicians has led to side effects that are wholly incongruous with any of the previous symptoms and ailments associated with hemiplegic migraines. And they are not showing signs of relenting; if anything, there is a very real concern that they are getting worse.
Until July 27, things were back and forth with E----'s recovery. She was nowhere near ready to return to work, but the hemiplegic migraine symptoms never returned either, and she was, with considerable difficulty, able to eventually go out on short errands a few times a week. She was allowed to graduate and receive her diploma in late June (having been dropped from the last class required due to her hospital visit in April), and, though she was fairly immobile for a few days afterward, she got through the ceremony walking slowly, or with the help of others, or with a wheelchair. July was equally back and forth, and then her joint pain became extremely pronounced by the end of July. So much so that getting off the couch or bed to use the restroom was now a lengthy and painful process.
As of this writing (late August, 2007), the joint pain has rendered her unable to do hardly any walking, her hair is falling out in the shower in clumps, and her overall circulation appears to be severely compromised. The family considers this to be the result of something (or, perhaps, somethings) that were indeed toxic in their application, as E---- has been displaying side effects similar in nature to being poisoned for just over a month now.
For all the problems E---- has had in the past, they have since dissipated; there have been no more migraines, no stroke-like symptoms and fibromyalgia that affect only one half of her body, etc. Instead, her entire body has become incapacitated while her mind has healed and is quite clear, and that has never happened; indeed, with her previous condition, whenever any event has occurred it has always been neurological in its onset and the pressure remained omnipresent in her head while the physiological symptoms would manifest themselves on her right side and, eventually, begin to dissipate in time.
She is presently at home, unable to return to work or commence school, and in chronic pain during waking hours.
(IV)
An upcoming appointment with a rheumatologist has been scheduled, as well as a pain management specialist, both by way of E----'s last visit to her primary physician, who, unless the neurologist has informed him, is still unaware of his incorrect prescription writing regarding the drug Depakote. I accompanied E---- on this most recent trip to her doctor where lab reports had come back saying her joint pain wasn't arthritis. She said, "I hurt." He said, "I want to get you to a pain management specialist." I asked, "Given that her neurological condition's extreme symptoms present when you met her in the hospital in mid-May have subsided, replaced instead with increasing joint pain and decreasing lack of mobility, what can we do to determine the cause?" He said "I don't have all the answers" and "I'm referring you to a rheumatologist (should take about three to four weeks)" and "Is the Aleve helping?" and it devolved further from there. A few more " I wish I had all the answers" and one "I'll be on vacation for two weeks" after filling out the prescription for Oxycontin for her pain.
It is my belief that an attorney should be retained, though perhaps after a formal request to the health care provider for a new primary doctor and a new neurologist. For now, consultation is very much appreciated. We, the family, have no idea the extent of the damage done by the prescription of the wrong drug, and at levels so high. The long-term effects remain to be seen from the negligent behavior by both doctors; however, there are more than enough reasons given E----'s suffering at present for the family to consult with an attorney.
The patient has a very real fear of being dropped by her HMO, and having to face this new batch of problems without medical insurance.
Thank you in advance for your time.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Inland
Was asked to write something "poetic and romantic" very early this morning. This is what happened instead...
Inland
I wash trace amounts of vodka from my eyes
And brush the sleep out of my mouth
It wasn't too bad a night, physically
Sun shines bright here at 8:30 AM, and
The little dog and I hop in the car
His interest wanes just after I put it into reverse
Where's mine? I wonder
Between the little league-ers and dog park-ers
We disembark, and we strut
There and back, perhaps five minutes' worth
The dog is old
I remain polite but disinterested
Surrounding the baseball diamonds and dog runs
The B-ball courts and playgrounds
Just the other side of an asphalt moat
The desert expanse abounds, the hills near
Lake Hodges only steps away
All was leveled without prejudice
During October's wildfires
Now covered in a sheet of green
As far as I can see
From January's rains
The earth soldiers on
We drive away
I think I'll take the long way back
Down an avenue unique only in name
That hollow feeling creeping in
As I load in a CD
A famous poet is singing,
"Everything dies, baby, that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies
Someday comes back"
Wide suburban roads splinter
Into endless courts and lanes
Terraces and places and circles
Manicured lawns garnished with SUVs
Purpose-driven people drive by
To the next stoplight, quickly
Or walk, in their walking clothes
Lots of walkers, this being Saturday
Here in Heaven's waiting room
I must get back; there is work to do
It's always best to stay busy
With her voice in my head
The imprints fresh from last night
Holding her would be better
Than missing her so, when she misses me
When we miss us
So far away sometimes
More than distance
Holding her
Like the two animals we are
Bound by time and understanding
And food and sex and laughter
And life
The life of being alive
A famous poet is singing,
"Everything dies, baby, that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies
Someday comes back"
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Inland
I wash trace amounts of vodka from my eyes
And brush the sleep out of my mouth
It wasn't too bad a night, physically
Sun shines bright here at 8:30 AM, and
The little dog and I hop in the car
His interest wanes just after I put it into reverse
Where's mine? I wonder
Between the little league-ers and dog park-ers
We disembark, and we strut
There and back, perhaps five minutes' worth
The dog is old
I remain polite but disinterested
Surrounding the baseball diamonds and dog runs
The B-ball courts and playgrounds
Just the other side of an asphalt moat
The desert expanse abounds, the hills near
Lake Hodges only steps away
All was leveled without prejudice
During October's wildfires
Now covered in a sheet of green
As far as I can see
From January's rains
The earth soldiers on
We drive away
I think I'll take the long way back
Down an avenue unique only in name
That hollow feeling creeping in
As I load in a CD
A famous poet is singing,
"Everything dies, baby, that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies
Someday comes back"
Wide suburban roads splinter
Into endless courts and lanes
Terraces and places and circles
Manicured lawns garnished with SUVs
Purpose-driven people drive by
To the next stoplight, quickly
Or walk, in their walking clothes
Lots of walkers, this being Saturday
Here in Heaven's waiting room
I must get back; there is work to do
It's always best to stay busy
With her voice in my head
The imprints fresh from last night
Holding her would be better
Than missing her so, when she misses me
When we miss us
So far away sometimes
More than distance
Holding her
Like the two animals we are
Bound by time and understanding
And food and sex and laughter
And life
The life of being alive
A famous poet is singing,
"Everything dies, baby, that's a fact
But maybe everything that dies
Someday comes back"
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, February 8, 2008
The Eye of Newt
On 15 Nov 07, Newt Gingrich delivered the following speech to the Jewish National Fund, available here, and well worth the read. I felt compelled to scribble a few observations not so much because I'm Jewish or a US citizen, but rather that there is a lot to think about in his well-crafted speech, and I say that as someone who has always regarded Gingrich as a dangerous putz precisely because of his intelligence. So, in the form of an open letter...
The Eye of Newt (Re: "Sleepwalking into a Nightmare")
23 Dec 07
As I know trying to send Herr Gingrich my unsolicited analysis of his speech would be pointless, I hope you'll indulge me in sifting through a few thoughts...just another American watching his country in a tailspin...
It would be all to easy to rib him for his public hypocrisy concerning his personal appetites while championing public impeachment of a fellow Southerner, or that, while a couple hundred billion in surplus may be possible with anyone in the White House, a whopping 9 trillion dollar deficit is only possible when Republicans are calling most of the shots...but I won't.
Seriously, he makes some valid points early on, but did you notice how his version of visionary and valiant Tories, etc., comes replete with not one word about the camps, Kristallnacht, and so forth, that was happening long before 1940? I'm not picking on him; just filling in a couple holes...and, yes, for all the sincerity within his talk, I realize he was in front of a bunch of Jews, presumably with checkbooks...
"And I know of no case historically where you defeat a guerrilla movement if it has a sanctuary" is pretty good. It only took the Soviets how long to figure that out in Afghanistan? Or, proving the rule, one might consider Ford and Kissinger giving Suharto face time, and a green light, with regard to East Timor - those "guerrillas" were certainly defeated...
I, for one, know of no case historically where you leave people destitute, hungry and economically barren after they fought a proxy battle against communism on your behalf, and expect them to become anything but guerrillas in our mist...perhaps a more refined question might be: How much did we allow the new Japanese government to spend on defense when we wrote and enacted their constitution? One percent of their budget, was it? I'm not trying to be Clauswitz here, let alone some sort of statesman, but the fact remains that this country flattened Germany and Japan, and its people, and then rebuilt them both. Waziristan doesn't have a Wermacht or the Imperial Japanese Army, just well-funded kamikazes who happen to be next to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. So, why don't we (a) stage a Mossadegh/Allende/Arbenz/the-list-is-endless extraction to remove Musharraf and secure the nukes with Our Man in Islamabad and (b) carpet bomb those faggots into submission as per the suggestions of some? I mean, God forbid we have even a little closure, right? Not cauterizing this now only allows it to metastasize, emboldened.
Sadly, it's rather apparent that Musharraf has always been Our Man, etc., and that there is an active effort to not close this one festering wound. Shameful.
But let me see eye to eye with Newt for second...he gets a resounding YES from me for having the stones to say we're financing al-Qaeda. The rampant "charities" that are here that get a pass are bad enough; the fact that he brought the oil companies into it was honorable. And the Saudi banks. He would have blown me away if he mentioned the billions in military aid - aid! - to Saudi Arabia. Modern doo-dads for the country that has everything, but rarely needs more than a bag and some rocks to flex its mighty strength (as long as the adversary is a lone female). That we citizens have been subsidizing the Saudis with respect to anything, especially since 2001, is, well...after a while, the words "...against all enemies, foreign or domestic" come to mind. We know that they are quite content being their duplicitous selves; what's our excuse, again, for putting up with it?
He was wrong about the Clooney movie, Syriana, in my opinion. It was based on the experiences of Robert Baer's 20 years in the CIA, primarily as a field officer in the Middle East. His (Baer's) credentials include a more patriotic CV than being a self-titled "army brat" (why..?). Also, while not an Arab prince, but rather a Persian head of state, the aforementioned Mossadegh was indeed reformist, and his removal was okayed with the full knowledge that he was neither a security threat nor a communist.
He was right to criticize Clinton (and, by extension, all of us) for not being more outraged at the attacks in the 1990's...let alone the twisted logic of selling weapons to Iran, with Israel's help, during the Reagan years. Probably the wrong room to dive in that deep...
"What truly bothers me is the shallowness and the sophistry of the Western governments, starting with our own" is another very thoughtful, and very insightful, comment coming from the former Speaker. Couldn't agree more. And it's not because I want to visit Medina someday (though that's an excellent point). No; it's the fallacious nature of our own leaders.
I thought this nailed it pretty well:
"None of our enemies are confused. Our enemies don't get up each morning and go, 'Oh, gosh, I think I'll have an existential crisis of identity in which I will try to think through whether or not we can be friends while you're killing me.' Our enemies get up every morning and say, 'We hate the West. We hate freedom.' They would not allow a meeting with women in the room.
"I was once interviewed by a BBC reporter, a nice young lady who was only about as anti-American as she had to be to keep her job. Since it was a live interview, I turned to her halfway through the interview and I said, 'Do you like your job?' And it was summertime, and she's wearing a short-sleeve dress. And she said, 'Well, yes.' She was confused because I had just reversed roles. I said, 'Well, then you should hope we win.' She said, 'What do you mean?' And I said, 'Well, if the enemy wins, you won't be allowed to be on television.'
"I don't know how to explain it any simpler than that."
Unfortunately, he lost me again when he went with the Sun Tzu tangent. For one, if "All warfare is based on deception," exactly who are we deceiving, besides those in this country? It's a disservice to my intelligence to proclaim one side is going to win and one side is going to lose, as we are not fighting a country: we are fighting a condition of the human heart. Stating "this is total war" is akin to Richard Perle's "We should just wage total war" and equally misleading, for it only takes a semi-astute individual to realize that eradicating hate, or, say, the desire to jihad, is not possible. It was all the "rage" a thousand years ago during the Crusades, over the same bullshit ideology, and it will be around for a while longer. So - even the semi-astute can follow Boolean logic - if it's a viral infection, then only washing however many billion Muslims from the surface of the earth will guarantee success. Since that's not going to happen, that leaves us in a perpetual state of losing, since we have been charged with "winning the War on Terror."
There is no "winning" in this sense; only maintenance...Israelis knew this long before they were called Israelis; we remain at this level of daft at our own peril, do we not? Any country challenging Israel can expect to have its ass handed to it, in tatters. But I've never heard nor read about Israel's plans to "win," as in eradicate, against a condition - against those the world over that would offer themselves as a weapon. Containment, yes, but someday claiming "victory" against terrorism? That mythical day, were it to arrive, would only increase our natural lassitude...and we don't all shop at Wal Mart while waiting to appear on Jerry Springer...yet...
If we ("...the people") were to follow Israel's lead, one of constant vigilance, who would stand in our way? It's a fair question.
In Pakistan yesterday some yutz blew himself up at a mosque, killing many others, all fellow Muslims. It was a holy day, the day where the faithful celebrate the fact that Abraham/Ibrahim was willing to kill his own son courtesy of the voices in his head. That amount of devotion, both by worshippers and "martyr," is telling...now, combine that with Gingrich saying (I'm assuming with a straight face), "... we have not been able to figure out how to take down one [Iranian] refinery. Covertly, quietly, without overt war." Here we are apparently sailing far above Mr Gingrich's intellectual and ethical pay grade, by his own words. Maybe he really believes we can't - not won't - erase whatever installation we want inside Iran. That sentiment would be terribly naive, and yet the alternative is that he's stringing along those to whom he is addressing at the JNF with the sincerity of an insurance salesman. Surely he understands that it isn't just Russian companies providing pieces-parts for Iranian installations, or that pissing off tens of millions of Persians, however covertly, will result in overt behavior. It's talk like that that makes him dangerous, in my opinion - I can just picture the faces in the room when he dropped that on them. Perhaps he also thinks we can win a war against Islam, against those that would blow up there own people...not unlike "they" think they can overrun the infidels and their (our) nukes...that's just being intentionally dim...
I suspect the outcome, a couple of generations or more down the road, will mirror the "victory" of the Cold War...am I the only one that realizes the thousands of missiles that are still sitting in Russian instead of Soviet silos don't care that it's not Johnson vs Goldwater this election season? Talk about terrorism...fuck boxcutters; show me an underpaid security guard and an oligarch who sees Putin vs Chechnya as an idea whose time has come...
I did like the story about the pipelines blowing up; but, was it really Reagan that unlocked Poland? Self-immolation was not in the apparatchik playbook, and we're probably not going to win over any Muslim nations just by sending up a Lech Walesa to influence the oppressed.
I think that the overwhelming amount of humanity, Muslim and non, much prefers to live with whatever we've accomplished since the Seventh Century. Immigration is generally headed one-way, and that's to the West. Our government became quite draconian when just a few religious nut-jobs with weapons chose to hole up in Waco, TX; what happens when it's a few million? I don't know if France, the UK and the US are ready for such a rude awakening from their nightmarish sleepwalking...but...the fading embers of optimism I still retain hope for a solution that patterns itself after Morris Dees and the SPLC in threatening their cashflow and forcing fellow Muslims to further marginalize the extremists lest they all get sent to Manzanar the Sequel, or (as he sighed with the knowledge of its improbability), that the lessons of Munich and Golda Meir and HUMINT will not be lost on us short-sighted cowboys.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
The Eye of Newt (Re: "Sleepwalking into a Nightmare")
23 Dec 07
As I know trying to send Herr Gingrich my unsolicited analysis of his speech would be pointless, I hope you'll indulge me in sifting through a few thoughts...just another American watching his country in a tailspin...
It would be all to easy to rib him for his public hypocrisy concerning his personal appetites while championing public impeachment of a fellow Southerner, or that, while a couple hundred billion in surplus may be possible with anyone in the White House, a whopping 9 trillion dollar deficit is only possible when Republicans are calling most of the shots...but I won't.
Seriously, he makes some valid points early on, but did you notice how his version of visionary and valiant Tories, etc., comes replete with not one word about the camps, Kristallnacht, and so forth, that was happening long before 1940? I'm not picking on him; just filling in a couple holes...and, yes, for all the sincerity within his talk, I realize he was in front of a bunch of Jews, presumably with checkbooks...
"And I know of no case historically where you defeat a guerrilla movement if it has a sanctuary" is pretty good. It only took the Soviets how long to figure that out in Afghanistan? Or, proving the rule, one might consider Ford and Kissinger giving Suharto face time, and a green light, with regard to East Timor - those "guerrillas" were certainly defeated...
I, for one, know of no case historically where you leave people destitute, hungry and economically barren after they fought a proxy battle against communism on your behalf, and expect them to become anything but guerrillas in our mist...perhaps a more refined question might be: How much did we allow the new Japanese government to spend on defense when we wrote and enacted their constitution? One percent of their budget, was it? I'm not trying to be Clauswitz here, let alone some sort of statesman, but the fact remains that this country flattened Germany and Japan, and its people, and then rebuilt them both. Waziristan doesn't have a Wermacht or the Imperial Japanese Army, just well-funded kamikazes who happen to be next to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. So, why don't we (a) stage a Mossadegh/Allende/Arbenz/the-list-is-endless extraction to remove Musharraf and secure the nukes with Our Man in Islamabad and (b) carpet bomb those faggots into submission as per the suggestions of some? I mean, God forbid we have even a little closure, right? Not cauterizing this now only allows it to metastasize, emboldened.
Sadly, it's rather apparent that Musharraf has always been Our Man, etc., and that there is an active effort to not close this one festering wound. Shameful.
But let me see eye to eye with Newt for second...he gets a resounding YES from me for having the stones to say we're financing al-Qaeda. The rampant "charities" that are here that get a pass are bad enough; the fact that he brought the oil companies into it was honorable. And the Saudi banks. He would have blown me away if he mentioned the billions in military aid - aid! - to Saudi Arabia. Modern doo-dads for the country that has everything, but rarely needs more than a bag and some rocks to flex its mighty strength (as long as the adversary is a lone female). That we citizens have been subsidizing the Saudis with respect to anything, especially since 2001, is, well...after a while, the words "...against all enemies, foreign or domestic" come to mind. We know that they are quite content being their duplicitous selves; what's our excuse, again, for putting up with it?
He was wrong about the Clooney movie, Syriana, in my opinion. It was based on the experiences of Robert Baer's 20 years in the CIA, primarily as a field officer in the Middle East. His (Baer's) credentials include a more patriotic CV than being a self-titled "army brat" (why..?). Also, while not an Arab prince, but rather a Persian head of state, the aforementioned Mossadegh was indeed reformist, and his removal was okayed with the full knowledge that he was neither a security threat nor a communist.
He was right to criticize Clinton (and, by extension, all of us) for not being more outraged at the attacks in the 1990's...let alone the twisted logic of selling weapons to Iran, with Israel's help, during the Reagan years. Probably the wrong room to dive in that deep...
"What truly bothers me is the shallowness and the sophistry of the Western governments, starting with our own" is another very thoughtful, and very insightful, comment coming from the former Speaker. Couldn't agree more. And it's not because I want to visit Medina someday (though that's an excellent point). No; it's the fallacious nature of our own leaders.
I thought this nailed it pretty well:
"None of our enemies are confused. Our enemies don't get up each morning and go, 'Oh, gosh, I think I'll have an existential crisis of identity in which I will try to think through whether or not we can be friends while you're killing me.' Our enemies get up every morning and say, 'We hate the West. We hate freedom.' They would not allow a meeting with women in the room.
"I was once interviewed by a BBC reporter, a nice young lady who was only about as anti-American as she had to be to keep her job. Since it was a live interview, I turned to her halfway through the interview and I said, 'Do you like your job?' And it was summertime, and she's wearing a short-sleeve dress. And she said, 'Well, yes.' She was confused because I had just reversed roles. I said, 'Well, then you should hope we win.' She said, 'What do you mean?' And I said, 'Well, if the enemy wins, you won't be allowed to be on television.'
"I don't know how to explain it any simpler than that."
Unfortunately, he lost me again when he went with the Sun Tzu tangent. For one, if "All warfare is based on deception," exactly who are we deceiving, besides those in this country? It's a disservice to my intelligence to proclaim one side is going to win and one side is going to lose, as we are not fighting a country: we are fighting a condition of the human heart. Stating "this is total war" is akin to Richard Perle's "We should just wage total war" and equally misleading, for it only takes a semi-astute individual to realize that eradicating hate, or, say, the desire to jihad, is not possible. It was all the "rage" a thousand years ago during the Crusades, over the same bullshit ideology, and it will be around for a while longer. So - even the semi-astute can follow Boolean logic - if it's a viral infection, then only washing however many billion Muslims from the surface of the earth will guarantee success. Since that's not going to happen, that leaves us in a perpetual state of losing, since we have been charged with "winning the War on Terror."
There is no "winning" in this sense; only maintenance...Israelis knew this long before they were called Israelis; we remain at this level of daft at our own peril, do we not? Any country challenging Israel can expect to have its ass handed to it, in tatters. But I've never heard nor read about Israel's plans to "win," as in eradicate, against a condition - against those the world over that would offer themselves as a weapon. Containment, yes, but someday claiming "victory" against terrorism? That mythical day, were it to arrive, would only increase our natural lassitude...and we don't all shop at Wal Mart while waiting to appear on Jerry Springer...yet...
If we ("...the people") were to follow Israel's lead, one of constant vigilance, who would stand in our way? It's a fair question.
In Pakistan yesterday some yutz blew himself up at a mosque, killing many others, all fellow Muslims. It was a holy day, the day where the faithful celebrate the fact that Abraham/Ibrahim was willing to kill his own son courtesy of the voices in his head. That amount of devotion, both by worshippers and "martyr," is telling...now, combine that with Gingrich saying (I'm assuming with a straight face), "... we have not been able to figure out how to take down one [Iranian] refinery. Covertly, quietly, without overt war." Here we are apparently sailing far above Mr Gingrich's intellectual and ethical pay grade, by his own words. Maybe he really believes we can't - not won't - erase whatever installation we want inside Iran. That sentiment would be terribly naive, and yet the alternative is that he's stringing along those to whom he is addressing at the JNF with the sincerity of an insurance salesman. Surely he understands that it isn't just Russian companies providing pieces-parts for Iranian installations, or that pissing off tens of millions of Persians, however covertly, will result in overt behavior. It's talk like that that makes him dangerous, in my opinion - I can just picture the faces in the room when he dropped that on them. Perhaps he also thinks we can win a war against Islam, against those that would blow up there own people...not unlike "they" think they can overrun the infidels and their (our) nukes...that's just being intentionally dim...
I suspect the outcome, a couple of generations or more down the road, will mirror the "victory" of the Cold War...am I the only one that realizes the thousands of missiles that are still sitting in Russian instead of Soviet silos don't care that it's not Johnson vs Goldwater this election season? Talk about terrorism...fuck boxcutters; show me an underpaid security guard and an oligarch who sees Putin vs Chechnya as an idea whose time has come...
I did like the story about the pipelines blowing up; but, was it really Reagan that unlocked Poland? Self-immolation was not in the apparatchik playbook, and we're probably not going to win over any Muslim nations just by sending up a Lech Walesa to influence the oppressed.
I think that the overwhelming amount of humanity, Muslim and non, much prefers to live with whatever we've accomplished since the Seventh Century. Immigration is generally headed one-way, and that's to the West. Our government became quite draconian when just a few religious nut-jobs with weapons chose to hole up in Waco, TX; what happens when it's a few million? I don't know if France, the UK and the US are ready for such a rude awakening from their nightmarish sleepwalking...but...the fading embers of optimism I still retain hope for a solution that patterns itself after Morris Dees and the SPLC in threatening their cashflow and forcing fellow Muslims to further marginalize the extremists lest they all get sent to Manzanar the Sequel, or (as he sighed with the knowledge of its improbability), that the lessons of Munich and Golda Meir and HUMINT will not be lost on us short-sighted cowboys.
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
American Pathology 1 Feb 08
Some "opinations" on why it is the way it is when freedom is on the march...
American Pathology 1 Feb 08
(I)
Yes...barbarians this way cometh, and isn't it noteworthy that the only ones emigrating away from our hard-fought, post-Enlightenment, indoor-plumbing, Brazilian bikini-wax society that (at least in theory) respects the individual are not the zealot or zealot wannabees barking about sharia law from the confines of, say, British legal insulation or what's left of American civil liberties; no, it's the rich and the super-rich that are actually migrating into the Arab world. That Halliburton has put down roots in the UAE is really all one needs to see; it's as good an example as any marker out there how the only existent loyalty to this country is presently and exclusively in the individual, never the corporation.
For all the dire warnings, whether fact-based or right-wing and/or neo-liberal dramatic, those equating this struggle to that of WWII seem to lack a fairly significant ingredient to any recipe for success: trickle-down, country-wide sacrifice. A mandate against war profiteering, penalties for trading with the enemy, rationing, etc., etc. Exactly the opposite is happening before our eyes. Perhaps we would still have been victorious in that global conflict, though it's hard to imagine FDR, post-3000 dead Americans at Pearl, saying, "...a day that will live in infamy...now go shopping..."
Applying brakes before this becomes an all-out harp-fest, but the case of Afghanistan is one of factual aspects that are oncoming trains of valuable intel, even if the official line (political, not military) appears to propose a cross between reading leaves of Pashtun tea and the old stand by of "shit happens." (Waxing Kipling's moustache here...)
Leaving the (irrelevant) "right-or-wrong" out of it: that we were aiding the poor, miserable Afghans in their noble fight against the Soviets is commendable; that there was a modicum of women's rights before '79, or that the Bush administration openly supported the Taliban before they didn't some two-plus decades later are just unpleasant facts. Even the "Charlie Wilson's War" aspect of this - that we did a good thing and then just didn't pay attention - while sufficient for the pedestrian palette, is hardly sufficient. Can we examine more closely, objectively? What happens if we do? If we find that, in July of 1979, a covert effort by the US to support an insurgency against the Soviet-themed factions of Afghan governance results with a Russian invasion in December of that year, does it matter that that is ignored in our history books? That a creepy, hyper-intelligent prick like Brzezynski tells Carter we can now hand the Soviets their own Vietnam, and boasts later how he helped facilitate the breakup of the USSR? Of course not; it's just commentary. But beyond that, what trends do we see and, through them, what deductions can we make about future trends?
If, in the span of one year, we demonize one country's Islamic extremists for de-throning our puppet shah, but move one country over and encourage the fundamentalists who are ideologically aligned with and inspired by the first country's fundamentalists that they should "fight the good fight" with our help, what does that say about us? Talk about "my enemy's enemy"...without firepower, how can we possibly be taken seriously? Which leads to the question of why take anything seriously spouting forth from the massed punditry and fiefdom spokesmodels, as it is all bullshit? Without firepower, we would be erased like those we wish to erase under various pretenses. It is all too easily to discern what motivates the Muslim radical; but what drives these people, supposedly on our side, that keep fucking it up for us?
That we looked the other way after 1989 as Afghanistan descended into misogynistic chaos is one thing; that we, with and through the Saudis and Pakistani ISI created the mujahadeen in the first place is another; but that the internecine warfare and resultant body counts would be ignored as they are in, say, Congo, except for the level of poppy production and, later, the geostrategic value Afghanistan holds that grew exponentially as the last century ended is probably the most significant factoid at play here, and worthy of objective focus.
(II)
This is not to bypass terrorism, rendering it somehow insignificant. Rather, it's an attempt to illustrate how, perhaps as early as 1991, and certainly by WTC 1993, it was being groomed to fill the gap left by the vaporization of the Cold War. If not every, then certainly almost every action taken at the highest levels of our government can be demonstrably shown to have only exacerbated the threat of terrorism, not contain it or extinguish it where it breeds. Why? Any mathematical model or psychological analysis or common sense approach to what we have done, thereby forecasting what we can expect in both the short run and the long throw would seem to support this. Again, why? Will children born of soldiers in March of 2003 be on the ground in 2023 fighting a tactic and not a country under the GWOT? In 2043? Where along that timeline will the tipping point occur, when more than 50% of the populace in and out of uniform realize that we're not defending the Constitution, but subverting it? Waterboarding it, even. And, more important, what methods will be necessary to keep the impressionable masses from paying attention to that man behind the curtain?
If Operation Northwoods was crafted, encouraged and deemed exceptable by the DOD and the JCS in 1962, what clever psy-ops and contingency plans that involve duping Americans might we expect fifty years later? It's a fair question, as that "greater good" shit can be a real killer.
Terrorism is immensely significant. Where it has been used with our repeated blessings on other continents over several decades, the prospect of it is now being employed psychologically against our own people, and with the full connivance of our leaders (though there is an obvious and significant dipstick factor at play with some of the decision making). This would be understandable if they were doing anything about it. But our ports aren't secure, our nuclear installations vulnerable - the list is endless and mindless. Every objective study and unannounced test of the TSA shows it to be a complete failure, save for their judicious ability to screen footwear. Odd, isn't it, that it's the human link that is the most pliable the way the US has it set up - that the TSA personnel who check your boarding pass against your ID with no digital verification simply trust the boarding pass you printed off your computer still has the proper name on it? The implications are quite daunting, particularly when factoring in the reality of the suicide bomber. So are these guys a threat or not? If yes, why are we letting them through so easily? Who is accountable?
Our children are not encouraged to study or exercise, only to understand idolatry by way of celebrity and the mantra that the outside world wants to take what they have, and that all the money spent now from their future health and social security will not be sufficient to stop terrorism. It's not to say terrorism isn't very real; it's to say that, seismic anomalies and olive-skinned John Doe #2 aside, we didn't sweep up and expunge all white supremacist survivalists in the wake of Oklahoma City, even though there is hardly an easier group to infiltrate. Likewise, the Saudi lobby is so huge in this country that politicians can't prostrate their prostate fast enough to keep that money flowing, with the obvious knowledge that millions, perhaps billions, have been funneled out of this country by Saudi courier to support those that wish us harm. It's a pathetic shell game, run by those with a moral compass slightly beneath your average carny or neighborhood pederast, and fueled exclusively by fear. And, of course, by going trillions of dollars into debt.
(III)
Getting away from the personal and back to the clinical, observation-wise: Why should we expect any less than an increase - a ballooning, if you will - in opium production in Afghanistan? The Taliban sought to eradicate it, and we once paid them (a pittance, and for show) to do so. However, like the Unocal pipeline that the Taliban was "for it before they were against it," this, also, wouldn't do. The geostrategic nature of Afghanistan is an amazing factor here, and represents (as it is ongoing) a rather formidable problem: the above board profits to be garnered from Eurasian natural resources and the concomitant huge amount of "growth" potential from the poppy fields, all in a land that has seen endless violence and whose people are enormously resilient. Have we changed since the Brits went to war to keep the Chinese high? Or since planes full of cocaine touched down in Mena, Arkansas, for that matter? Does it not compute that the greatest military force in the world is deployed in a country producing over 90% of the world's opium? Since the Taliban now condones growing the crop, and we now condone slaughtering the barbaric Taliban, what's stopping us exactly?
Sadly, the so-called above board commodities paint a picture even more stark. Whereas greed stemming from drug sales is of a fairly one-dimensional business model, what prompted the mad, reckless dash toward the Caspian Sea? Iran was and is simply not "doable," and yet Iraq somehow was, even if it has shown with time to prove immensely difficult, as Afghanistan has been immensely forgotten. The desperate nature behind the way this region must be procured for the modern Great White Father is indicative of how these minds are thinking, and the data before them. It is at once more and yet less than this charade of religious, bellicose zealots in Washington going after their religious, bellicose counterparts in some cave or training camp - at the end of the day it's merely a business decision. Where does that leave us, then, the currency in these transactions?
(IV)
Will end it there for now, with one obvious admission of omission: 9/11 wasn't mentioned above. To do so in the context of Afghanistan would require citing the myriad sources explaining in detail the plans to invade that country, firmed up in this country, by the summer of 2001 - an act which probably still flies in the face of some international law that those running the US have long since disregarded anyway, and certainly by April of 2001 with respect to Southwestern Asia. Exactly who wants us to win? should be the question of the day, as it is most profitable if nobody wins anytime soon.
But here are a couple of facts to chew on, perhaps helpful or at least indicative of how it's a little deeper (or simply worse) than "A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East":
i) On 11 September, in the wake of four airplanes having been hijacked by Muslim extremists, the president of the US signed a directive authorizing the use of air marshals, and publicly professed an earnest desire to learn and implement counter-terrorism strategies from nations that have dealt successfully with radicals hijacking planes; in other words, to start to think like the Israelis.
That president was Richard Nixon; the date 11 September 1970.
ii) In July of 2001, the FAA rescinded a forty-year-old rule allowing pilots to be armed; this six years after the failed Operation Bojinka plot made it clear that jihadist lunatics are willing to blow up aircraft in flight.
Coincidence is one thing; a purported lack of pre-emptive intelligence that mirrors abject stupidity is quite another.
What started the above long-windedness was primarily due a personal fascination with Afghanistan, but also in no small part because of an article by Professor Louis Rene Beres sent my way, and available here. From January of 2008, it's actually an updated version of an older piece from October, 2001, and available here. He changes little between articles. I opted to respond to the one more recent when emailing back:
I agree with some of what the professor espouses, but think it veers toward propaganda in places. Namely:
Saying that the majority of those of the Muslim faith are basically swell, but then dropping "Arab/Islamist terror is simply the most visible and painful expression of an enraged civilization," for one. So now they're civilized, these seventh-century animals? Or is the entire populace, 1 & 1/2 billion of them, now "enraged" as one [civilization]? Crafty, he is.
Or, surely an (accurate) barb like this one below isn't exclusive to just one side (I'll bet it's already been lifted - the writing is indeed good - and posted to jihadist websites as an "explanation" for the enemy they face in the years to come):
"Sanctified killers, these millions would generate an incessant search for more 'Godless' victims. Though mired in blood, their search would be tranquil and self-assured, born of the altogether certain knowledge that its perpetrators were neither evil nor infamous, but 'heroic.' "
Finally, and ironically enough, the "recent" quote (also recent in 2001, apparently) he lifted from an unnamed Egyptian paper is, if interpreted "properly", exactly the policy he seems to be advocating:
"...the cancer, the malignant wound, in the body of Arabism, for which there is no cure but eradication."
It's just nitpicking, and do forgive me for carrying on - the professor would do well to pen an article titled "Why We Should Skip the Incidentals and Just Conquer the Middle East." Or at least stop giving Egypt and Saudi Arabia billions, with the understanding that they then buy arms from US companies. It's atrocious and glossed over at our peril.
That was indeed disgusting, having to recently watch our president all but fellate another Saudi leader, and I say that with the full knowledge that many (in this country) felt the exact same way when they saw Bush with Olmert and the hard-on for Iran that followed. Oh well. What it did remind me of, though, was having a little "epiphanette" (while trapped in a pithy net?) some years ago...remember when it became so clear that Bush was nothing but a puppet, that Cheney was running the show? I suppose the more astute among us noticed on or before the Cheney Energy Task Force started operating with Stasi-like efficacy in early 2001; for me it was soon after. But it wasn't until years later when Cheney's tax returns were made public, how he went from single-digit millionaire to the eight-figure mark, that it became so obvious he's just carrying water like so many others. That Bush, the son, is an idiot, but off limits because Bush, the name, is a dynasty. Sort of like bin Laden, the phantom, who will never be hung from a village square, because bin Laden, the family, is treasured by the Carlyle group and countless others. The loyalty is clear; perhaps our erudite professor could write about that, as it most certainly affects the safety and welfare of our country and its citizenry.
The other thing I find noteworthy, since Sun Tzu was brought up in the article, is one of his tenets - which I've not read in years, so excuse me if I quote incorrectly - about corralling an enemy, or an enemy on the run. That there should always be an impression in the enemy's mind that there is a way out, an unmanned corner of the battlefield by which escape is possible. If the enemy is cornered, according to Ancient Chinese Secret, he will fight with everything he has; not so if he feels escape possible. I suppose it's a tactic as old as hunting, but who, exactly, benefits from a policy that does the opposite, that appears to chest-thump about "they're on the run" and then...let's them run?
I know this isn't applicable for those that can't wait to get their asses to Allah, but, like the sorry sods that lasted however many minutes against Schwarzkopf in '91 before laying down, to the present day, not everyone dark or dusky wants to be a martyr. Is the professor's strategy of liquidate first, ask questions later really going to save Western Civilization? Or hasten its demise?
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
American Pathology 1 Feb 08
(I)
Yes...barbarians this way cometh, and isn't it noteworthy that the only ones emigrating away from our hard-fought, post-Enlightenment, indoor-plumbing, Brazilian bikini-wax society that (at least in theory) respects the individual are not the zealot or zealot wannabees barking about sharia law from the confines of, say, British legal insulation or what's left of American civil liberties; no, it's the rich and the super-rich that are actually migrating into the Arab world. That Halliburton has put down roots in the UAE is really all one needs to see; it's as good an example as any marker out there how the only existent loyalty to this country is presently and exclusively in the individual, never the corporation.
For all the dire warnings, whether fact-based or right-wing and/or neo-liberal dramatic, those equating this struggle to that of WWII seem to lack a fairly significant ingredient to any recipe for success: trickle-down, country-wide sacrifice. A mandate against war profiteering, penalties for trading with the enemy, rationing, etc., etc. Exactly the opposite is happening before our eyes. Perhaps we would still have been victorious in that global conflict, though it's hard to imagine FDR, post-3000 dead Americans at Pearl, saying, "...a day that will live in infamy...now go shopping..."
Applying brakes before this becomes an all-out harp-fest, but the case of Afghanistan is one of factual aspects that are oncoming trains of valuable intel, even if the official line (political, not military) appears to propose a cross between reading leaves of Pashtun tea and the old stand by of "shit happens." (Waxing Kipling's moustache here...)
Leaving the (irrelevant) "right-or-wrong" out of it: that we were aiding the poor, miserable Afghans in their noble fight against the Soviets is commendable; that there was a modicum of women's rights before '79, or that the Bush administration openly supported the Taliban before they didn't some two-plus decades later are just unpleasant facts. Even the "Charlie Wilson's War" aspect of this - that we did a good thing and then just didn't pay attention - while sufficient for the pedestrian palette, is hardly sufficient. Can we examine more closely, objectively? What happens if we do? If we find that, in July of 1979, a covert effort by the US to support an insurgency against the Soviet-themed factions of Afghan governance results with a Russian invasion in December of that year, does it matter that that is ignored in our history books? That a creepy, hyper-intelligent prick like Brzezynski tells Carter we can now hand the Soviets their own Vietnam, and boasts later how he helped facilitate the breakup of the USSR? Of course not; it's just commentary. But beyond that, what trends do we see and, through them, what deductions can we make about future trends?
If, in the span of one year, we demonize one country's Islamic extremists for de-throning our puppet shah, but move one country over and encourage the fundamentalists who are ideologically aligned with and inspired by the first country's fundamentalists that they should "fight the good fight" with our help, what does that say about us? Talk about "my enemy's enemy"...without firepower, how can we possibly be taken seriously? Which leads to the question of why take anything seriously spouting forth from the massed punditry and fiefdom spokesmodels, as it is all bullshit? Without firepower, we would be erased like those we wish to erase under various pretenses. It is all too easily to discern what motivates the Muslim radical; but what drives these people, supposedly on our side, that keep fucking it up for us?
That we looked the other way after 1989 as Afghanistan descended into misogynistic chaos is one thing; that we, with and through the Saudis and Pakistani ISI created the mujahadeen in the first place is another; but that the internecine warfare and resultant body counts would be ignored as they are in, say, Congo, except for the level of poppy production and, later, the geostrategic value Afghanistan holds that grew exponentially as the last century ended is probably the most significant factoid at play here, and worthy of objective focus.
(II)
This is not to bypass terrorism, rendering it somehow insignificant. Rather, it's an attempt to illustrate how, perhaps as early as 1991, and certainly by WTC 1993, it was being groomed to fill the gap left by the vaporization of the Cold War. If not every, then certainly almost every action taken at the highest levels of our government can be demonstrably shown to have only exacerbated the threat of terrorism, not contain it or extinguish it where it breeds. Why? Any mathematical model or psychological analysis or common sense approach to what we have done, thereby forecasting what we can expect in both the short run and the long throw would seem to support this. Again, why? Will children born of soldiers in March of 2003 be on the ground in 2023 fighting a tactic and not a country under the GWOT? In 2043? Where along that timeline will the tipping point occur, when more than 50% of the populace in and out of uniform realize that we're not defending the Constitution, but subverting it? Waterboarding it, even. And, more important, what methods will be necessary to keep the impressionable masses from paying attention to that man behind the curtain?
If Operation Northwoods was crafted, encouraged and deemed exceptable by the DOD and the JCS in 1962, what clever psy-ops and contingency plans that involve duping Americans might we expect fifty years later? It's a fair question, as that "greater good" shit can be a real killer.
Terrorism is immensely significant. Where it has been used with our repeated blessings on other continents over several decades, the prospect of it is now being employed psychologically against our own people, and with the full connivance of our leaders (though there is an obvious and significant dipstick factor at play with some of the decision making). This would be understandable if they were doing anything about it. But our ports aren't secure, our nuclear installations vulnerable - the list is endless and mindless. Every objective study and unannounced test of the TSA shows it to be a complete failure, save for their judicious ability to screen footwear. Odd, isn't it, that it's the human link that is the most pliable the way the US has it set up - that the TSA personnel who check your boarding pass against your ID with no digital verification simply trust the boarding pass you printed off your computer still has the proper name on it? The implications are quite daunting, particularly when factoring in the reality of the suicide bomber. So are these guys a threat or not? If yes, why are we letting them through so easily? Who is accountable?
Our children are not encouraged to study or exercise, only to understand idolatry by way of celebrity and the mantra that the outside world wants to take what they have, and that all the money spent now from their future health and social security will not be sufficient to stop terrorism. It's not to say terrorism isn't very real; it's to say that, seismic anomalies and olive-skinned John Doe #2 aside, we didn't sweep up and expunge all white supremacist survivalists in the wake of Oklahoma City, even though there is hardly an easier group to infiltrate. Likewise, the Saudi lobby is so huge in this country that politicians can't prostrate their prostate fast enough to keep that money flowing, with the obvious knowledge that millions, perhaps billions, have been funneled out of this country by Saudi courier to support those that wish us harm. It's a pathetic shell game, run by those with a moral compass slightly beneath your average carny or neighborhood pederast, and fueled exclusively by fear. And, of course, by going trillions of dollars into debt.
(III)
Getting away from the personal and back to the clinical, observation-wise: Why should we expect any less than an increase - a ballooning, if you will - in opium production in Afghanistan? The Taliban sought to eradicate it, and we once paid them (a pittance, and for show) to do so. However, like the Unocal pipeline that the Taliban was "for it before they were against it," this, also, wouldn't do. The geostrategic nature of Afghanistan is an amazing factor here, and represents (as it is ongoing) a rather formidable problem: the above board profits to be garnered from Eurasian natural resources and the concomitant huge amount of "growth" potential from the poppy fields, all in a land that has seen endless violence and whose people are enormously resilient. Have we changed since the Brits went to war to keep the Chinese high? Or since planes full of cocaine touched down in Mena, Arkansas, for that matter? Does it not compute that the greatest military force in the world is deployed in a country producing over 90% of the world's opium? Since the Taliban now condones growing the crop, and we now condone slaughtering the barbaric Taliban, what's stopping us exactly?
Sadly, the so-called above board commodities paint a picture even more stark. Whereas greed stemming from drug sales is of a fairly one-dimensional business model, what prompted the mad, reckless dash toward the Caspian Sea? Iran was and is simply not "doable," and yet Iraq somehow was, even if it has shown with time to prove immensely difficult, as Afghanistan has been immensely forgotten. The desperate nature behind the way this region must be procured for the modern Great White Father is indicative of how these minds are thinking, and the data before them. It is at once more and yet less than this charade of religious, bellicose zealots in Washington going after their religious, bellicose counterparts in some cave or training camp - at the end of the day it's merely a business decision. Where does that leave us, then, the currency in these transactions?
(IV)
Will end it there for now, with one obvious admission of omission: 9/11 wasn't mentioned above. To do so in the context of Afghanistan would require citing the myriad sources explaining in detail the plans to invade that country, firmed up in this country, by the summer of 2001 - an act which probably still flies in the face of some international law that those running the US have long since disregarded anyway, and certainly by April of 2001 with respect to Southwestern Asia. Exactly who wants us to win? should be the question of the day, as it is most profitable if nobody wins anytime soon.
But here are a couple of facts to chew on, perhaps helpful or at least indicative of how it's a little deeper (or simply worse) than "A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East":
i) On 11 September, in the wake of four airplanes having been hijacked by Muslim extremists, the president of the US signed a directive authorizing the use of air marshals, and publicly professed an earnest desire to learn and implement counter-terrorism strategies from nations that have dealt successfully with radicals hijacking planes; in other words, to start to think like the Israelis.
That president was Richard Nixon; the date 11 September 1970.
ii) In July of 2001, the FAA rescinded a forty-year-old rule allowing pilots to be armed; this six years after the failed Operation Bojinka plot made it clear that jihadist lunatics are willing to blow up aircraft in flight.
Coincidence is one thing; a purported lack of pre-emptive intelligence that mirrors abject stupidity is quite another.
What started the above long-windedness was primarily due a personal fascination with Afghanistan, but also in no small part because of an article by Professor Louis Rene Beres sent my way, and available here. From January of 2008, it's actually an updated version of an older piece from October, 2001, and available here. He changes little between articles. I opted to respond to the one more recent when emailing back:
I agree with some of what the professor espouses, but think it veers toward propaganda in places. Namely:
Saying that the majority of those of the Muslim faith are basically swell, but then dropping "Arab/Islamist terror is simply the most visible and painful expression of an enraged civilization," for one. So now they're civilized, these seventh-century animals? Or is the entire populace, 1 & 1/2 billion of them, now "enraged" as one [civilization]? Crafty, he is.
Or, surely an (accurate) barb like this one below isn't exclusive to just one side (I'll bet it's already been lifted - the writing is indeed good - and posted to jihadist websites as an "explanation" for the enemy they face in the years to come):
"Sanctified killers, these millions would generate an incessant search for more 'Godless' victims. Though mired in blood, their search would be tranquil and self-assured, born of the altogether certain knowledge that its perpetrators were neither evil nor infamous, but 'heroic.' "
Finally, and ironically enough, the "recent" quote (also recent in 2001, apparently) he lifted from an unnamed Egyptian paper is, if interpreted "properly", exactly the policy he seems to be advocating:
"...the cancer, the malignant wound, in the body of Arabism, for which there is no cure but eradication."
It's just nitpicking, and do forgive me for carrying on - the professor would do well to pen an article titled "Why We Should Skip the Incidentals and Just Conquer the Middle East." Or at least stop giving Egypt and Saudi Arabia billions, with the understanding that they then buy arms from US companies. It's atrocious and glossed over at our peril.
That was indeed disgusting, having to recently watch our president all but fellate another Saudi leader, and I say that with the full knowledge that many (in this country) felt the exact same way when they saw Bush with Olmert and the hard-on for Iran that followed. Oh well. What it did remind me of, though, was having a little "epiphanette" (while trapped in a pithy net?) some years ago...remember when it became so clear that Bush was nothing but a puppet, that Cheney was running the show? I suppose the more astute among us noticed on or before the Cheney Energy Task Force started operating with Stasi-like efficacy in early 2001; for me it was soon after. But it wasn't until years later when Cheney's tax returns were made public, how he went from single-digit millionaire to the eight-figure mark, that it became so obvious he's just carrying water like so many others. That Bush, the son, is an idiot, but off limits because Bush, the name, is a dynasty. Sort of like bin Laden, the phantom, who will never be hung from a village square, because bin Laden, the family, is treasured by the Carlyle group and countless others. The loyalty is clear; perhaps our erudite professor could write about that, as it most certainly affects the safety and welfare of our country and its citizenry.
The other thing I find noteworthy, since Sun Tzu was brought up in the article, is one of his tenets - which I've not read in years, so excuse me if I quote incorrectly - about corralling an enemy, or an enemy on the run. That there should always be an impression in the enemy's mind that there is a way out, an unmanned corner of the battlefield by which escape is possible. If the enemy is cornered, according to Ancient Chinese Secret, he will fight with everything he has; not so if he feels escape possible. I suppose it's a tactic as old as hunting, but who, exactly, benefits from a policy that does the opposite, that appears to chest-thump about "they're on the run" and then...let's them run?
I know this isn't applicable for those that can't wait to get their asses to Allah, but, like the sorry sods that lasted however many minutes against Schwarzkopf in '91 before laying down, to the present day, not everyone dark or dusky wants to be a martyr. Is the professor's strategy of liquidate first, ask questions later really going to save Western Civilization? Or hasten its demise?
Copyright 2007-2008 Jexican Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
