The recent announcement by the U.S. government that Jonathan Pollard, the convicted American spy for Israel will be paroled brought to mind the subject of spying on "friends." Pollard, who worked for U.S. Naval Intelligence, spied on behalf of Israel and was caught and convicted of espionage in 1985. Pollard was born in the U.S. of U.S. born Jewish parents and grew up in an upper middle class environment. He graduated from Stanford University with a degree in Political Science and sought employment in the intelligence community. While in college, he was known to boast to friends that he was in fact a dual citizen (Israeli/U.S.) and that he worked for the Israeli intelligence, Mossad. At the time, it was a lie, he did not work for the Israelis.
Upon graduation from college, he interviewed for a job with CIA who turned him down as a security risk. However, the Navy hired him despite the fact that CIA found him wanting. While with the Naval Intelligence, he committed several missteps but instead of firing him, he was simply transferred to another job! He was finally caught spying for Israel and convicted to life imprisonment in 1985.
Israel has been lobbying to have him released, and the U.S. government had steadfastly refused, saying that they had to set an example. Interestingly, after serving 30 years, suddenly Washington no longer feels a need to "set an example." Could it be that the present government is attempting to appease the Israelis after the Iran Nuclear Deal? I hate to be so cynical, but I am afraid there is no other explanation for this unprecedented "parole" of a convicted spy. Chances are also that Obama will pardon Pollard, allowing him to move to Israel!
The last time a "friend" of the U.S. spied on our country was sometime ago. The infamous Kim Philby of the "Cambridge Five" notoriety was stationed in Washington D.C. during and shortly after World War Two as a British Intelligence Liaison with the U.S. Intelligence. He had access to the most secret information concerning our war plans as well as anti soviet activities. You see, Philby, although an Englishman working as a high ranking officer for MI6, was actually a double agent working for KGB. Philby passed some extremely sensitive information that caused the deaths of a large number of our agents in the Soviet Union.
In case of Philby, although he was British and ostensibly representing the British Intelligence, he was working for the Soviet Union, so he was not exactly a friend spying on friends. But, since he was a British intelligence officer as well as a Soviet spy, I included him in this discussion.
Friendly countries spying on each other is not something new or unusual. Most recently we got caught with our hand in a cookie jar when Wikileaks divulged information that NSA had been listening-in on telephone conversation of Angela Merkel of Germany as well as the French president and other leaders of friendly European countries! It may not seem gentlemanly, but we have always spied on friends as they have spied on us! For instance, we are not exactly enemies with China. It would be more accurate to say that we are friends, despite our differences in political ideologies. Yet, we are constantly sounding the alarm about Chinese spying, especially in the cyber world! Don't think we are not doing the same to them! We have been spying on our friends, the British (our closest ally!) included, since we became an independent nation in 1776! Believe it or not, but the Revolutionary War or the War of Independence was largely won because of our superior intelligence rather than the marksmanship of our troops, as Hollywood likes to portray. George Washington was much better at organizing and running an intelligence operation than battle tactics! He had other generals to do the military stuff, he was obsessed with spy networks and intelligence gathering!
Going back into history, despite the reputation of the ruthlessness of his warriors, Chinghis (Genghis) Khan's greatest asset was his extensive network of spies, his intelligence network. He knew more about his enemies than in some instances, they knew about themselves!
The old adage that "Gentlemen do not spy on each other!" or as one of our Secretary of States famously stated before World War Two, referring to intercepting messages from other embassies, "Gentlemen do no read other gentlemen's mail!" is quaint but terribly naïve. Yes, a noble attitude, but look where it got us at the start of World War Two! Unprepared and uninformed!
So, despite the fact that the idea of spying on friendly countries may seem despicable and unwarranted, in the real world, it does take place and has been taking place for centuries! Wikileaks let everyone know about NSA's eves-dropping. But there is much more going on. Unfortunately, we probably have better intelligence on our "friends" than we do on our enemies. One of our failures in the Middle East is lack of "humint" or human intelligence, the "boots on the ground" of agents spying for us. So, despite all the sophisticated electronics, the bottom line is always human intelligence, and spying on friends, I am afraid, is something that will not go away.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Friday, July 24, 2015
The Border
Since beginning of history, borders between countries or kingdoms have been a source of problems. Usually, the richer countries or kingdoms were always trying to protect their territory, to keep out the unwanted, while their poorer neighbors were constantly trying to get into the rich neighbors' back yard. This has been the standard scenario for centuries.
In ancient China, the Chinese built the Great Wall to keep out the northern barbarians. The first part of the wall was completed around 220 BC and the final portions were built during the Ming Dynasty. Overall, the Great Wall snakes around China's northern and eastern frontier for about 5500 miles, an amazing distance, and an incredible engineering feat. But, as huge as the Great Wall is, it was unable to keep out the barbarians. What the barbarians did was to either bribe the gate keepers to let them in or circumvent the wall and enter China through portion that did not have the wall. That is how the Mongols were able to enter China in the 13th Century, a part of their invading force entered by bribing the gate keeper in the northern part and the other part of the force went around and entered through areas in Manchuria where the wall was not yet built. Thus the Mongols not only entered China but also accomplished a classic pincer maneuver!
In the 17th Century, the Manchus entered China by way of southwestern Manchuria where portions of the wall were not built. Once the Mongols conquered China in the 13th Century and established the Yuan Dynasty, all construction of the Great Wall stopped. Mongols feared no one and felt no need to finish building the wall, therefore, they left open gaps through which the Manchus invaded China some four centuries later!
The Great Wall was not only a tremendous physical barrier, but it was always heavily guarded by an army, so it was next to impossible to penetrate, yet both the Mongols and the Manchus managed to do it with relative ease. So, I guess nothing is for certain!
In modern times, the Berlin Wall went up in 1961 to prevent the East Germans from crossing into West Germany. The Berlin Wall and the entire border was heavily guarded and anyone trying to cross was shot. Many East Germans perished trying to escape to the West. Still, they kept trying in all sorts of ingenious ways, until the wall finally came down in 1989! (The actual demolishing of the wall took place much later). In case of the Berlin Wall, it was the opposite of the Great Wall of China. It was built to keep its people in, not to keep out West Germans, although it served both purposes!
However, not all borders have man made physical barriers. The border between China (Manchuria) and North Korea is two rivers. The Tuman River in the east and Yalu River in the west. Both rivers flow from the great mountain range known as Paek Tu San, the Long White Mountains. Crossing the mountain range is impossible for most, so the two rivers are the most common crossing points. The North Korean side of the border is heavily guarded and anyone trying to cross is shot on sight. The Chinese side of the border is also heavily guarded, and anyone apprehended at the border is simply sent back across immediately. With terrible dangers facing them with an almost impossible chance of making it across, the poor starving North Koreans continue to try to cross into Manchuria.
Once they cross successfully and manage to evade Chinese guards, they are "home free" so-to-speak." Manchuria has historically been heavily populated with Koreans going back to ancient times. Chinese have tried to make Manchuria more "Chinese" by moving large number of Han Chinese into the territory. Still, there are large communities, especially in southern Manchuria that are made up entirely of ethnic Koreans. Korean is still the lingua franca in those regions so new escapees can easily melt into the countryside. However, because of the difficulty and dangers involved, the number of North Koreans managing to escape is not so great as to cause alarm for North Korean regime.
Our border with Mexico is a totally different animal. We have had more or less an open border in the past, since the Mexican War when we took a big chunk of Mexican territory and called it our own. Crossing the southern border in either direction was not much of a problem. Mexican workers, particularly seasonal agricultural workers, were always welcomed by the farmers in the West. We established a "Border Crossing Card" system which allowed Mexicans to come and go at will. Of course there were always those who crossed without any documentation. But, as the economic situation in Mexico became worst, and the population kept growing, the number of illegals seeking work in "Del Norte" (the North) or "El Otro Lado" (the other side) became greater and greater to where it reach the point it has today.
There are all sorts of promises and suggestions made by politicians and the current presidential candidates. The simple fact remains that no one is actually offering any real solutions. That is because the real solution would not be "politically correct." The real solution would require one of the two, either complete capitulation, letting all illegals enter at will and reap the benefits of legal residents and citizens, or take drastic action and provide rigid enforcement at the border and within the country. Building a bigger and longer fence is not the solution. It does provide a physical barrier, but unless we are willing to back that with sufficient armed patrolling of the fences, then the physical barriers would be of no use. So, although we might go the extra step and spend a lot of money building a bigger fence, I don't think we would be willing to support the new fence with additional armed border patrol or use of National Guard troops to safeguard our southern border.
Everything revolves around "political correctness." Who knows, the public may be swayed to believe that a fence would be the answer, although historically it has been proven that physical barriers without actual rigid enforcement, really do not prevent anything! Yes, we might spend billions of tax payers money building an elaborate, high tech fence, the "new Great Wall." But without actual boots on the ground, border patrol or armed troops to guard the "new Great Wall," it will simply be good money wasted! Of course, our government is a master at wasting "good" money!
The only thing that will stem the flow of the illegals is actual enforcement, which we are unwilling to do. It is just too un-"PC" for us to apply rigid enforcement. This would entail "racial profiling" by stopping suspected illegals, and it would require stopping illegal border crossers at gun point and forcing them back. The current system is rather silly, wasting all the time and manpower bringing illegals back to "process," then putting them in holding areas before deportation, if deportation does take place. The current system would have to be thrown out. The Border Patrol or National Guard should just stop the crossers and turn them back across, nothing more. This will not completely stop the illegal flow, but it will be much better than it is today!
But, that would never happen. There would be such an outcry from the liberal camp that no politician would be willing to take such heat. So, what is going to happen? It will just get worst until our wimpy politicians will capitulate, more than likely grant full rights to all illegals and open the southern border. We might as well dismantle all border crossing stations. Why waste all that money maintaining border crossing points and paying salaries to Border Patrol and ICE, in fact, why have Border Patrol at all?
In ancient China, the Chinese built the Great Wall to keep out the northern barbarians. The first part of the wall was completed around 220 BC and the final portions were built during the Ming Dynasty. Overall, the Great Wall snakes around China's northern and eastern frontier for about 5500 miles, an amazing distance, and an incredible engineering feat. But, as huge as the Great Wall is, it was unable to keep out the barbarians. What the barbarians did was to either bribe the gate keepers to let them in or circumvent the wall and enter China through portion that did not have the wall. That is how the Mongols were able to enter China in the 13th Century, a part of their invading force entered by bribing the gate keeper in the northern part and the other part of the force went around and entered through areas in Manchuria where the wall was not yet built. Thus the Mongols not only entered China but also accomplished a classic pincer maneuver!
In the 17th Century, the Manchus entered China by way of southwestern Manchuria where portions of the wall were not built. Once the Mongols conquered China in the 13th Century and established the Yuan Dynasty, all construction of the Great Wall stopped. Mongols feared no one and felt no need to finish building the wall, therefore, they left open gaps through which the Manchus invaded China some four centuries later!
The Great Wall was not only a tremendous physical barrier, but it was always heavily guarded by an army, so it was next to impossible to penetrate, yet both the Mongols and the Manchus managed to do it with relative ease. So, I guess nothing is for certain!
In modern times, the Berlin Wall went up in 1961 to prevent the East Germans from crossing into West Germany. The Berlin Wall and the entire border was heavily guarded and anyone trying to cross was shot. Many East Germans perished trying to escape to the West. Still, they kept trying in all sorts of ingenious ways, until the wall finally came down in 1989! (The actual demolishing of the wall took place much later). In case of the Berlin Wall, it was the opposite of the Great Wall of China. It was built to keep its people in, not to keep out West Germans, although it served both purposes!
However, not all borders have man made physical barriers. The border between China (Manchuria) and North Korea is two rivers. The Tuman River in the east and Yalu River in the west. Both rivers flow from the great mountain range known as Paek Tu San, the Long White Mountains. Crossing the mountain range is impossible for most, so the two rivers are the most common crossing points. The North Korean side of the border is heavily guarded and anyone trying to cross is shot on sight. The Chinese side of the border is also heavily guarded, and anyone apprehended at the border is simply sent back across immediately. With terrible dangers facing them with an almost impossible chance of making it across, the poor starving North Koreans continue to try to cross into Manchuria.
Once they cross successfully and manage to evade Chinese guards, they are "home free" so-to-speak." Manchuria has historically been heavily populated with Koreans going back to ancient times. Chinese have tried to make Manchuria more "Chinese" by moving large number of Han Chinese into the territory. Still, there are large communities, especially in southern Manchuria that are made up entirely of ethnic Koreans. Korean is still the lingua franca in those regions so new escapees can easily melt into the countryside. However, because of the difficulty and dangers involved, the number of North Koreans managing to escape is not so great as to cause alarm for North Korean regime.
Our border with Mexico is a totally different animal. We have had more or less an open border in the past, since the Mexican War when we took a big chunk of Mexican territory and called it our own. Crossing the southern border in either direction was not much of a problem. Mexican workers, particularly seasonal agricultural workers, were always welcomed by the farmers in the West. We established a "Border Crossing Card" system which allowed Mexicans to come and go at will. Of course there were always those who crossed without any documentation. But, as the economic situation in Mexico became worst, and the population kept growing, the number of illegals seeking work in "Del Norte" (the North) or "El Otro Lado" (the other side) became greater and greater to where it reach the point it has today.
There are all sorts of promises and suggestions made by politicians and the current presidential candidates. The simple fact remains that no one is actually offering any real solutions. That is because the real solution would not be "politically correct." The real solution would require one of the two, either complete capitulation, letting all illegals enter at will and reap the benefits of legal residents and citizens, or take drastic action and provide rigid enforcement at the border and within the country. Building a bigger and longer fence is not the solution. It does provide a physical barrier, but unless we are willing to back that with sufficient armed patrolling of the fences, then the physical barriers would be of no use. So, although we might go the extra step and spend a lot of money building a bigger fence, I don't think we would be willing to support the new fence with additional armed border patrol or use of National Guard troops to safeguard our southern border.
Everything revolves around "political correctness." Who knows, the public may be swayed to believe that a fence would be the answer, although historically it has been proven that physical barriers without actual rigid enforcement, really do not prevent anything! Yes, we might spend billions of tax payers money building an elaborate, high tech fence, the "new Great Wall." But without actual boots on the ground, border patrol or armed troops to guard the "new Great Wall," it will simply be good money wasted! Of course, our government is a master at wasting "good" money!
The only thing that will stem the flow of the illegals is actual enforcement, which we are unwilling to do. It is just too un-"PC" for us to apply rigid enforcement. This would entail "racial profiling" by stopping suspected illegals, and it would require stopping illegal border crossers at gun point and forcing them back. The current system is rather silly, wasting all the time and manpower bringing illegals back to "process," then putting them in holding areas before deportation, if deportation does take place. The current system would have to be thrown out. The Border Patrol or National Guard should just stop the crossers and turn them back across, nothing more. This will not completely stop the illegal flow, but it will be much better than it is today!
But, that would never happen. There would be such an outcry from the liberal camp that no politician would be willing to take such heat. So, what is going to happen? It will just get worst until our wimpy politicians will capitulate, more than likely grant full rights to all illegals and open the southern border. We might as well dismantle all border crossing stations. Why waste all that money maintaining border crossing points and paying salaries to Border Patrol and ICE, in fact, why have Border Patrol at all?
Friday, July 17, 2015
Political Correctness
Political Correctness or PC is a relatively new term that began to pop-up in our vocabulary fairly recently. It may have existed in the English language lexicon before, but did not become part of our everyday usage until a only a couple of decades ago. If you would have mentioned political correctness during Vietnam era, you would have received a blank or a puzzled look from your listener. It was only in the last 20 years that it began to receive widespread usage.
Europeans have been into PC much earlier and have always accused us of not having the proper sensitivity, the proper awareness of this "new age." As always, Americans were accused of being crude, ill mannered, or simply as they say in Spanish, malcriado (spoiled). In short, we lacked PC. UK was a great one for PC. You could see it in their TV shows and in the words used by their politicians. We, in the meantime, sort of stumbled along. But once we got hold of it, we became fervent converts. PC became the magic word.
Unfortunately, like everything else, things can be taken too far, and in this case, I believe we took this business of PC too far. It has been controlling our lives politically, economically, and every other possible way! You may disagree with me, but the recent murder of a young woman in San Francisco by an illegal alien with a documented criminal history is a perfect example of PC gone awry! Of all places in America, San Francisco is possibly the most PC city (Seattle is close second) in the country. It has been that way for a long, long time. It was the first city to have an openly gay city official, Harvey Milk who was a city supervisor back in the 1970s. Dianne Feinstein was a San Francisco Supervisor with Harvey Milk. Feinstein is one of the biggest anti-gun politicians in Washington, yet, did you know that she carried a .38 snub nose revolver in her purse during her time in San Francisco? For all I know, she may still be carrying one in Washington! Interesting that it was OK for her to carry a gun but almost impossible for an average citizen to obtain a permit to carry a gun in San Francisco!
San Francisco was always PC! It is now a "sanctuary" city which essentially advertises that illegal aliens may come to the city and they will not be bothered by the law enforcement. I know that the Dirty Harry movies of the 1970s painted a picture of San Francisco police being a very hard and tough crew. The fact is that even back then the SFPD was constantly at odds with the city government which continually tied their hands in crime fighting because the criminals' rights had to be protected!
The latest tragedy involving the murder of four Marines in Tennessee is a direct result of our society's preoccupation with PC. The FBI knew that something was not right with this guy, otherwise they would not have put him on the watch list. But, I guess he did not do anything to allow them to be more aggressive in their investigation or checking of his background and life style. They, I am sure, did not want to be accused of "racial profiling." Here, we have another ridiculous term born recently with the rise in illegal alien problem. Racial profiling, a ridiculous term, when you consider that vast majority of illegal aliens in this country are from south of the border. They are Hispanic, so if a Hispanic person looks suspicious in the eyes of the law, he or she cannot be stopped and questioned or searched. That would be racial profiling! I suppose the best way to do that is to stop and search a Caucasian, Asian, African, Middle Easterner, and a Hispanic, if you are trying to catch an illegal alien. Then after questioning and searching everyone, arrest the Hispanic if he or she turns out to be an illegal.
If the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, how are you going to apprehend them if you do not single out Hispanics for the search? In the same token, if the majority of terrorists, domestic and otherwise are Muslims, how are you going to look for them and stop them if you don't "profile" Muslims? Again, I suppose that to be PC, we should profile Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and a couple of atheists thrown in with Muslims, so that we can identify Muslim terrorists!
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona is a controversial figure. He has bucked the Federal Government, especially Eric Holder and the Justice Department, for their lack of action and support in stopping the flow of illegal immigration. Holder took it upon himself to pay back Arpaio and the State of Arizona, especially after the "Fast and Furious" Federal gun running fiasco in which Arpaio criticized Holder. Holder, as payback, accused Arpaio and his department of "racial profiling" Hispanics during Arpaio's vigorous anti illegal alien campaign.
Personally, I don't care much for Joe Arpaio. I think he is a blow-hard and a self promoter with a mega-sized ego. But I will have to agree with him when he said that the Federal Government was not doing its job of protecting our border and apprehending the illegals. He could not protect the border because he was only in charge of Maricopa County which is not on the border. But he could do something about apprehending illegals so he launched a vigorous campaign, stopping and searching suspected illegals. How was he to accomplish that if he did not stop and search Hispanics? The so-called "racial profiling" became automatic in this case! Of course the Federal Investigation ensued and Arpaio and his department was found guilty of "racial profiling."
We seem to be living in a unrealistic world, in "never-never land," when we insist that we cannot identify illegals by their race, when the majority of illegals are racially identifiable as Hispanics, and we cannot identify by race or religion, suspected terrorists, when in fact vast majority, if not all of recent terror acts in this country were committed by Muslims and or Muslims of Middle Eastern background. Until such time as when Africans, Asians, and European illegal aliens begin to flood our shores, Hispanics are the majority of illegal entrants into this country. Are we to ignore that and not concentrate on Hispanics but look for all ethnic groups for illegals? As for terrorists, perhaps we should concentrate on rooting out Japanese Red Army cells or the Bader Meinhoff and Red Brigade of old, and let's not forget the domestic terrorists in the form of the old Symbionese Liberation Army with good old Patty Hearst, they may be still around, or their grandchildren!
I am not suggesting that we take drastic action like what happened during World War Two when the Japanese-Americans were interned. That was racial profiling to the extreme and a horrible black mark in our history! But I think in these unstable times, our law enforcement should be given the right to do a certain amount of "racial profiling" to try to stop the flow of illegals and to try to stop terrorist attacks. How else is the law enforcement going to be able to stop the acts before they take place or apprehend illegals? If there is a system of identifying illegal Hispanics in this country without "profiling" or identifying potential terrorists without "profiling" them as Muslims or of Middle Eastern origin, then I haven't heard of it.
Let me know if there is a way.
Europeans have been into PC much earlier and have always accused us of not having the proper sensitivity, the proper awareness of this "new age." As always, Americans were accused of being crude, ill mannered, or simply as they say in Spanish, malcriado (spoiled). In short, we lacked PC. UK was a great one for PC. You could see it in their TV shows and in the words used by their politicians. We, in the meantime, sort of stumbled along. But once we got hold of it, we became fervent converts. PC became the magic word.
Unfortunately, like everything else, things can be taken too far, and in this case, I believe we took this business of PC too far. It has been controlling our lives politically, economically, and every other possible way! You may disagree with me, but the recent murder of a young woman in San Francisco by an illegal alien with a documented criminal history is a perfect example of PC gone awry! Of all places in America, San Francisco is possibly the most PC city (Seattle is close second) in the country. It has been that way for a long, long time. It was the first city to have an openly gay city official, Harvey Milk who was a city supervisor back in the 1970s. Dianne Feinstein was a San Francisco Supervisor with Harvey Milk. Feinstein is one of the biggest anti-gun politicians in Washington, yet, did you know that she carried a .38 snub nose revolver in her purse during her time in San Francisco? For all I know, she may still be carrying one in Washington! Interesting that it was OK for her to carry a gun but almost impossible for an average citizen to obtain a permit to carry a gun in San Francisco!
San Francisco was always PC! It is now a "sanctuary" city which essentially advertises that illegal aliens may come to the city and they will not be bothered by the law enforcement. I know that the Dirty Harry movies of the 1970s painted a picture of San Francisco police being a very hard and tough crew. The fact is that even back then the SFPD was constantly at odds with the city government which continually tied their hands in crime fighting because the criminals' rights had to be protected!
The latest tragedy involving the murder of four Marines in Tennessee is a direct result of our society's preoccupation with PC. The FBI knew that something was not right with this guy, otherwise they would not have put him on the watch list. But, I guess he did not do anything to allow them to be more aggressive in their investigation or checking of his background and life style. They, I am sure, did not want to be accused of "racial profiling." Here, we have another ridiculous term born recently with the rise in illegal alien problem. Racial profiling, a ridiculous term, when you consider that vast majority of illegal aliens in this country are from south of the border. They are Hispanic, so if a Hispanic person looks suspicious in the eyes of the law, he or she cannot be stopped and questioned or searched. That would be racial profiling! I suppose the best way to do that is to stop and search a Caucasian, Asian, African, Middle Easterner, and a Hispanic, if you are trying to catch an illegal alien. Then after questioning and searching everyone, arrest the Hispanic if he or she turns out to be an illegal.
If the majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, how are you going to apprehend them if you do not single out Hispanics for the search? In the same token, if the majority of terrorists, domestic and otherwise are Muslims, how are you going to look for them and stop them if you don't "profile" Muslims? Again, I suppose that to be PC, we should profile Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and a couple of atheists thrown in with Muslims, so that we can identify Muslim terrorists!
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County in Arizona is a controversial figure. He has bucked the Federal Government, especially Eric Holder and the Justice Department, for their lack of action and support in stopping the flow of illegal immigration. Holder took it upon himself to pay back Arpaio and the State of Arizona, especially after the "Fast and Furious" Federal gun running fiasco in which Arpaio criticized Holder. Holder, as payback, accused Arpaio and his department of "racial profiling" Hispanics during Arpaio's vigorous anti illegal alien campaign.
Personally, I don't care much for Joe Arpaio. I think he is a blow-hard and a self promoter with a mega-sized ego. But I will have to agree with him when he said that the Federal Government was not doing its job of protecting our border and apprehending the illegals. He could not protect the border because he was only in charge of Maricopa County which is not on the border. But he could do something about apprehending illegals so he launched a vigorous campaign, stopping and searching suspected illegals. How was he to accomplish that if he did not stop and search Hispanics? The so-called "racial profiling" became automatic in this case! Of course the Federal Investigation ensued and Arpaio and his department was found guilty of "racial profiling."
We seem to be living in a unrealistic world, in "never-never land," when we insist that we cannot identify illegals by their race, when the majority of illegals are racially identifiable as Hispanics, and we cannot identify by race or religion, suspected terrorists, when in fact vast majority, if not all of recent terror acts in this country were committed by Muslims and or Muslims of Middle Eastern background. Until such time as when Africans, Asians, and European illegal aliens begin to flood our shores, Hispanics are the majority of illegal entrants into this country. Are we to ignore that and not concentrate on Hispanics but look for all ethnic groups for illegals? As for terrorists, perhaps we should concentrate on rooting out Japanese Red Army cells or the Bader Meinhoff and Red Brigade of old, and let's not forget the domestic terrorists in the form of the old Symbionese Liberation Army with good old Patty Hearst, they may be still around, or their grandchildren!
I am not suggesting that we take drastic action like what happened during World War Two when the Japanese-Americans were interned. That was racial profiling to the extreme and a horrible black mark in our history! But I think in these unstable times, our law enforcement should be given the right to do a certain amount of "racial profiling" to try to stop the flow of illegals and to try to stop terrorist attacks. How else is the law enforcement going to be able to stop the acts before they take place or apprehend illegals? If there is a system of identifying illegal Hispanics in this country without "profiling" or identifying potential terrorists without "profiling" them as Muslims or of Middle Eastern origin, then I haven't heard of it.
Let me know if there is a way.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
"The Mad Baron"
Throughout human history, there have always been interesting and colorful characters, especially during times of war. America has had its share, as has just about every country in the world. Naturally, Russia is no exception, and it seems that some fascinating, "interesting" characters played some major roles in Russian history, particularly during its 20th Century Bolshevik Revolution and the civil war that followed. One such character was Baron Roman Ungern Von Sternberg, nick-named the "Mad Baron." His biography, particularly his final ten years or so during the Russian Civil War, reads like a wild, combination "Indiana Jones/James Bond/Attila the Hun" movie! I am very surprised that Hollywood has not yet gotten hold of his story and made it into a movie. There were probably some movies where part of his character was used, but never the whole story. It is a bloody, yet a fascinating story!
Roman Ungern-Von Sternberg was born in Austria of Austrian aristocrats in 1885. When he was three, his parents moved to Latvia, which at the time was part of Baltic Russia. That whole region, incidentally, was heavily populated with people of German extraction, It was also a region that throughout history kept switching from Russian territory, to German, to independent, etc., today it is independent but as recently as the 1980s, it was Russian, part of the Soviet Union.
Young Roman grew up completely in a Russian environment and received Russian education at various schools including military academy. In 1905, while he was still a cadet, he volunteered for the front line duty when the Russo-Japanese War broke out. He went to the Far East, Manchuria, but it is unclear as to whether he saw any combat. One thing is for sure, his exposure to the Far East made him a lifetime lover of Eastern culture, philosophy, etc. He returned to school after the war ended and finished his studies and was commissioned in the Tsarist Army. He immediately volunteered for duty in the Far East and was delighted when he was assigned to an Amur Cossack unit in Siberia. The Amur Cossacks were about 50% Asian....Mongols, Manchus, Koreans, etc. Roman loved especially the Mongol culture and studied various Asian languages and Buddhism. He became fluent in several tongues, including Mongolian, Chinese, and Japanese! During World War One he was transferred to the Western Front where he distinguished himself in combat, but returned to the Far East as soon as he could. When the revolution took place, he naturally sided with the "Whites" or the Tsarists. As an aristocrat he would have been unceremoniously shot by the Bolsheviks even if he decided to switch sides!
During the civil war that followed he rose rapidly in rank and was promoted to Major General in the "White" Tsarist Army. But despite his fervent anti Bolshevik sentiment, he sort of drifted away from fighting the Bolsheviks to trying to create a new Mongol Empire! He commanded an "Asian Division" which was made up of multi-national collection of soldiers. There were Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Mongols, Manchus, even Japanese! They were a feared fighting force both by the Bolsheviks and the Chinese, the Asian Division fought with anyone who got in their way. For a short period they occupied Manchuria when it was still predominantly run by bandits, the Japanese were unable to gain complete control yet. He befriended the Chinese War Lord of Manchuria, Chiang Su Lin, and married a Manchurian Princess Jin. Ironically, Princess Jin did not speak Russian so the two communicated in English! They were married in a Russian Orthodox ceremony in Harbin and the Princess was baptized Elena Pavlovona.
After his marriage, he moved his division (against the orders of his superior, General Semyonov) to Outer Mongolia. At the time, Outer Mongolia was fast falling under Chinese control. The Chinese already had control of Inner Mongolia and they were trying to gain control of Outer Mongolia. The Mad Baron's plan was to chase out the Chinese and establish a new Mongol Empire under one of the remaining descendants of Chinghis Khan, Bogd Khan, who was secretly communicating with the Mad Baron from his exile in Peking. The Baron first moved his troops to the only area still remaining under Mongolian control, an area known as Setsen-Khan Aimag. The area was ruled by a Mongolian Princess called Setsen-Khan. The Princess welcomed the Baron, who trained and organized her Mongol army and attacked the Chinese. He was able to defeat the Chinese easily and took control of Outer Mongolia. He called for Bogd Khan to return to Mongolia, and briefly, established a new Mongol Empire for about a six month period.
The Mad Baron was extremely cruel to anyone who got in his way. He got his reputation from the way he treated the enemy, but also his own troops if they did not perform to his liking! The Baron's dream of reestablishing the Mongol Empire lasted less than a year. In 1921 the Bolshevik troops struck across the border and defeated the Mad Baron and his Asian Division with an overwhelming force. He was captured, tried and shot, all in six hours!
One thing that he did was to prevent China from gaining complete control over Mongolia! Had he not attacked the Chinese forces from Manchuria as he did, and defeat them, there would be no Mongolia today. For all practical purposes, there is no Inner Mongolia to speak of today, it is just a Chinese province. The Chinese have heavily settled the area with Han Chinese to lessen Mongolian influence. They would have done the same thing with Outer Mongolia, had the Mad Baron not disrupted their plans!
Baron Roman Ungern-Von Sternberg was not a mercenary soldier who took over Mongolia and killed, plundered, and pillaged his way. He may have been cruel, but he was not some blood thirsty ruffian interested only in money and power. He was a refined, educated, intelligent person who genuinely had the best interest of Mongols in his heart, misguided though it may have been! A fascinating person, one of those that you can say, "there will never be another one like him!"
Roman Ungern-Von Sternberg was born in Austria of Austrian aristocrats in 1885. When he was three, his parents moved to Latvia, which at the time was part of Baltic Russia. That whole region, incidentally, was heavily populated with people of German extraction, It was also a region that throughout history kept switching from Russian territory, to German, to independent, etc., today it is independent but as recently as the 1980s, it was Russian, part of the Soviet Union.
Young Roman grew up completely in a Russian environment and received Russian education at various schools including military academy. In 1905, while he was still a cadet, he volunteered for the front line duty when the Russo-Japanese War broke out. He went to the Far East, Manchuria, but it is unclear as to whether he saw any combat. One thing is for sure, his exposure to the Far East made him a lifetime lover of Eastern culture, philosophy, etc. He returned to school after the war ended and finished his studies and was commissioned in the Tsarist Army. He immediately volunteered for duty in the Far East and was delighted when he was assigned to an Amur Cossack unit in Siberia. The Amur Cossacks were about 50% Asian....Mongols, Manchus, Koreans, etc. Roman loved especially the Mongol culture and studied various Asian languages and Buddhism. He became fluent in several tongues, including Mongolian, Chinese, and Japanese! During World War One he was transferred to the Western Front where he distinguished himself in combat, but returned to the Far East as soon as he could. When the revolution took place, he naturally sided with the "Whites" or the Tsarists. As an aristocrat he would have been unceremoniously shot by the Bolsheviks even if he decided to switch sides!
During the civil war that followed he rose rapidly in rank and was promoted to Major General in the "White" Tsarist Army. But despite his fervent anti Bolshevik sentiment, he sort of drifted away from fighting the Bolsheviks to trying to create a new Mongol Empire! He commanded an "Asian Division" which was made up of multi-national collection of soldiers. There were Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Mongols, Manchus, even Japanese! They were a feared fighting force both by the Bolsheviks and the Chinese, the Asian Division fought with anyone who got in their way. For a short period they occupied Manchuria when it was still predominantly run by bandits, the Japanese were unable to gain complete control yet. He befriended the Chinese War Lord of Manchuria, Chiang Su Lin, and married a Manchurian Princess Jin. Ironically, Princess Jin did not speak Russian so the two communicated in English! They were married in a Russian Orthodox ceremony in Harbin and the Princess was baptized Elena Pavlovona.
After his marriage, he moved his division (against the orders of his superior, General Semyonov) to Outer Mongolia. At the time, Outer Mongolia was fast falling under Chinese control. The Chinese already had control of Inner Mongolia and they were trying to gain control of Outer Mongolia. The Mad Baron's plan was to chase out the Chinese and establish a new Mongol Empire under one of the remaining descendants of Chinghis Khan, Bogd Khan, who was secretly communicating with the Mad Baron from his exile in Peking. The Baron first moved his troops to the only area still remaining under Mongolian control, an area known as Setsen-Khan Aimag. The area was ruled by a Mongolian Princess called Setsen-Khan. The Princess welcomed the Baron, who trained and organized her Mongol army and attacked the Chinese. He was able to defeat the Chinese easily and took control of Outer Mongolia. He called for Bogd Khan to return to Mongolia, and briefly, established a new Mongol Empire for about a six month period.
The Mad Baron was extremely cruel to anyone who got in his way. He got his reputation from the way he treated the enemy, but also his own troops if they did not perform to his liking! The Baron's dream of reestablishing the Mongol Empire lasted less than a year. In 1921 the Bolshevik troops struck across the border and defeated the Mad Baron and his Asian Division with an overwhelming force. He was captured, tried and shot, all in six hours!
One thing that he did was to prevent China from gaining complete control over Mongolia! Had he not attacked the Chinese forces from Manchuria as he did, and defeat them, there would be no Mongolia today. For all practical purposes, there is no Inner Mongolia to speak of today, it is just a Chinese province. The Chinese have heavily settled the area with Han Chinese to lessen Mongolian influence. They would have done the same thing with Outer Mongolia, had the Mad Baron not disrupted their plans!
Baron Roman Ungern-Von Sternberg was not a mercenary soldier who took over Mongolia and killed, plundered, and pillaged his way. He may have been cruel, but he was not some blood thirsty ruffian interested only in money and power. He was a refined, educated, intelligent person who genuinely had the best interest of Mongols in his heart, misguided though it may have been! A fascinating person, one of those that you can say, "there will never be another one like him!"
Monday, July 13, 2015
The H'mong
We Americans are a generous, kind, and unfortunately, gullible people. We are a people who believe in "fair play" and the right for everyone to pursue happiness and good life. We believe in protecting the weak, and like to think of ourselves as sort of a comic book "superhero" type of a nation that comes to the aid of the small guy in trouble. That may have indeed been the case in some instances in the past, but recent history has shown that we, as a nation, are far from being the idealized version that we like think of ourselves. In short, what the American people think and believe, and what our government is doing or has been doing, are apparently two completely different versions. It does not matter whether it is a Republican or Democratic administration, our government has not performed to our idealized view and standards, what we as people think our government should do.
Quite frankly, our performance (as a nation) in supporting our friends, being loyal to those who supported our cause, our interests, has been miserable in the last half of a century. It does not even have to do with armed conflicts. Take Taiwan or the good old Republic of China for example. We swore up and down that we would protect them, back them 100% against that evil communist enemy of theirs across the straits, the People's Republic of China. Then, in a blink of any eye, with Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing followed by Nixon's televised toast with Mao, we dumped Taiwan and became bosom buddies with PRC, who today holds the largest stack of our IOUs, and we are constantly accusing them of spying on us with cyber attacks, etc. At just about the same time, we launched a "Vietnamization" program, withdrew our combat troops (actually all troops) from Vietnam, the very same Vietnam or Republic of South Vietnam that we created and supported. Shortly, we essentially dumped the Republic of South Vietnam, left it to its own devices, and within an incredible short space of time, it fell apart and those nasty communists that we had been fighting for over a decade took over.
In more recent history, we encouraged the Kurds in Iraq to rise against Saddam Hussein, then inexplicably dumped them after the first Gulf War. During the Iraqi Freedom (the second Gulf War), we solicited the Kurds help to drive south from the north. Incredibly enough, the Kurds, who had been abandoned by us a decade earlier and suffered mightily, agreed to help us. It may have been the so-called "coalition" forces (translated, 90% U.S.) that drove from south northward to Baghdad, but it was the combined Kurdish forces, the Peshmergahs led by our Special Forces that did all the fighting in the north. Yet, after their significant contribution to overall victory, we abandoned them once again in 2011 when we decided to pull out of Iraq! Now we are again asking the Kurds to help us, this time to fight ISIS! I don't know, if I was a Kurd I would have to think hard about joining forces with us!
But this blog is not supposed to be about Kurds, it is rather about the H'mong people who helped us so much during our involvement in Indochina! Most notably, the H'mong were our allies, armed and trained by CIA and Army Special Forces to fight our enemies. The H'mong were the Royal Lao Army, the ones that fought the communist Pathet Lao and the North Vietnamese! In Laos, they were essentially our only allies during the long, protracted "secret war" that took place from the early 1960s until we left in mid 1970s. The H'mong, led by General Vang Pau fought bravely and continuously for us during our entire stay in the region.
There are two major ethnic minority groups in Indochina that were named montagnards (mountain people) by the French. One group is called the Degar and the other H'mong or Miao (Meo). The H'mong are the larger group consisting of about 5 million total souls scattered about the mountain regions of Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. They have always been mistreated, persecuted by the Lao, the Thai and the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese even called montagnards moi, which means beast or animal! I am sure they still use that derogatory term. During our (not French) Vietnam war, we used the montagnards extensively as mercenary troops and the H'mong were one of the largest participants. We used them as regular troops in Laos, the so-called Royal Lao Army, and we used them as irregular troops that were called Mobile Guerrilla Units, Mobile Strike Forces, and Provincial Reconnaissance Units. The Mobile Guerrillas, the Mike Forces, and the PRUs were highly successful. They were patterned after the famous Jingpao and Kachin Rangers of World War Two fame in Burma that were trained and led by the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA and the Army Special Forces.
Guess what happened when we left Vietnam? Yes, we dumped them! Fortunately several thousand H'mongs led by General Vang Pau were able to get out of Laos and resettle in the U.S., and periodically more have managed to make their way to America by way of refugee camps in Thailand. Why refugee camps in Thailand? Because they are actively being persecuted, sought out and either killed or incarcerated by the Communist Lao government. The same thing is taking place in Vietnam where a smaller population of H'mong still hangs on in the mountains. Those who escape communist persecution have only one place to go in the region, Thailand. Thailand on the otherhand, doesn't want them and actually periodically sends back some of the H'mongs back to Laos or Vietnam where you can guess what kind of reception they receive. The atrocities that they suffer are so horrific that they are unimaginable for most Americans!
Incredibly enough, there are H'mong resistance fighters still in remote regions of Laos and Vietnam. They are now second and even third generation H'mong anti communist fighters. The Lao and Vietnamese governments pursue the H'mong like animals. They hunt them down in helicopters and indiscriminately mow down men, women, and children. They are still moi, as far as the communist regime is concerned!
In 2006, the aging Vang Pau and some of his associates were arrested by the Federal Agents (ATF) in California and charged with "attempt to overthrow a foreign government." Apparently Vang Pau and his colleagues bought some weapons and tried to send them to Laos, to the resistance fighters. How ironic! We had recruited these people and armed them and told them to fight the communists. For years they had been writing letters and appealing to various people in our government to help their brothers in Laos in Vietnam. Naturally, their pleas were ignored, so in desperation they decided to do something themselves. So now, we are charging them with "attempt to overthrow" the very same government that we had paid them to fight for over a decade! Fortunately, there was enough of an uproar from former CIA and Special Forces veterans that mysteriously in 2007 all charges were dropped.
The H'mong and the Degar, the montagnards are still actively pursued and persecuted by both the Lao and the Vietnamese governments. They are hunted down like animals. The UNHCR keeps filing reports, but as is typical of UN, it is doing nothing about it. There is even one lengthy report filed by UNHCR that is titled, Hunted Like Animals. Yet, nothing has been done to date by anyone! We, who are responsible for creating this situation are doing nothing! Yes, we did allow some who were lucky enough to get away to resettle in the U.S. We have the largest population of H'mong outside of Laos and Vietnam. Currently there are a bit over a quarter of a million H'mong scattered about the U.S. The largest number, about a hundred thousand, are in California. There are even some in Alaska! But the bulk of the population is still in those rugged mountains of Laos and Vietnam, and incredibly, still fighting the communist rulers of those countries!
We have this shame-full history of abandoning our allies, especially ethnic minorities like the H'mong. In another part of the world, the Kurds are facing the same situation. They too have been abandoned by us, twice, after throwing in their lot with us. But the Kurds, unlike the H'mong, are larger in numbers (there are about 35 million Kurds), are better organized, and capable of fending for themselves for the most part. The H'mong, on the otherhand, were so trusting of our support. They were trusting to a fault, childlike. In fact, one of the traits that most Americans who had contact with montaganrds (H'mong or Degar) noticed immediately was how trusting they were! These are simple people, guileless! They trusted us completely when we told them that if they fought for us, everything would be fine and we would be always there to support them. Little did they know about how our government operates and how duplicitous it can be! They couldn't comprehend that, they are just to trusting and they truly believed us! You can rest assured that if the Kurds knew of the H'mongs, they would not be fighting for us now!
Quite frankly, our performance (as a nation) in supporting our friends, being loyal to those who supported our cause, our interests, has been miserable in the last half of a century. It does not even have to do with armed conflicts. Take Taiwan or the good old Republic of China for example. We swore up and down that we would protect them, back them 100% against that evil communist enemy of theirs across the straits, the People's Republic of China. Then, in a blink of any eye, with Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing followed by Nixon's televised toast with Mao, we dumped Taiwan and became bosom buddies with PRC, who today holds the largest stack of our IOUs, and we are constantly accusing them of spying on us with cyber attacks, etc. At just about the same time, we launched a "Vietnamization" program, withdrew our combat troops (actually all troops) from Vietnam, the very same Vietnam or Republic of South Vietnam that we created and supported. Shortly, we essentially dumped the Republic of South Vietnam, left it to its own devices, and within an incredible short space of time, it fell apart and those nasty communists that we had been fighting for over a decade took over.
In more recent history, we encouraged the Kurds in Iraq to rise against Saddam Hussein, then inexplicably dumped them after the first Gulf War. During the Iraqi Freedom (the second Gulf War), we solicited the Kurds help to drive south from the north. Incredibly enough, the Kurds, who had been abandoned by us a decade earlier and suffered mightily, agreed to help us. It may have been the so-called "coalition" forces (translated, 90% U.S.) that drove from south northward to Baghdad, but it was the combined Kurdish forces, the Peshmergahs led by our Special Forces that did all the fighting in the north. Yet, after their significant contribution to overall victory, we abandoned them once again in 2011 when we decided to pull out of Iraq! Now we are again asking the Kurds to help us, this time to fight ISIS! I don't know, if I was a Kurd I would have to think hard about joining forces with us!
But this blog is not supposed to be about Kurds, it is rather about the H'mong people who helped us so much during our involvement in Indochina! Most notably, the H'mong were our allies, armed and trained by CIA and Army Special Forces to fight our enemies. The H'mong were the Royal Lao Army, the ones that fought the communist Pathet Lao and the North Vietnamese! In Laos, they were essentially our only allies during the long, protracted "secret war" that took place from the early 1960s until we left in mid 1970s. The H'mong, led by General Vang Pau fought bravely and continuously for us during our entire stay in the region.
There are two major ethnic minority groups in Indochina that were named montagnards (mountain people) by the French. One group is called the Degar and the other H'mong or Miao (Meo). The H'mong are the larger group consisting of about 5 million total souls scattered about the mountain regions of Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. They have always been mistreated, persecuted by the Lao, the Thai and the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese even called montagnards moi, which means beast or animal! I am sure they still use that derogatory term. During our (not French) Vietnam war, we used the montagnards extensively as mercenary troops and the H'mong were one of the largest participants. We used them as regular troops in Laos, the so-called Royal Lao Army, and we used them as irregular troops that were called Mobile Guerrilla Units, Mobile Strike Forces, and Provincial Reconnaissance Units. The Mobile Guerrillas, the Mike Forces, and the PRUs were highly successful. They were patterned after the famous Jingpao and Kachin Rangers of World War Two fame in Burma that were trained and led by the OSS, the predecessor of the CIA and the Army Special Forces.
Guess what happened when we left Vietnam? Yes, we dumped them! Fortunately several thousand H'mongs led by General Vang Pau were able to get out of Laos and resettle in the U.S., and periodically more have managed to make their way to America by way of refugee camps in Thailand. Why refugee camps in Thailand? Because they are actively being persecuted, sought out and either killed or incarcerated by the Communist Lao government. The same thing is taking place in Vietnam where a smaller population of H'mong still hangs on in the mountains. Those who escape communist persecution have only one place to go in the region, Thailand. Thailand on the otherhand, doesn't want them and actually periodically sends back some of the H'mongs back to Laos or Vietnam where you can guess what kind of reception they receive. The atrocities that they suffer are so horrific that they are unimaginable for most Americans!
Incredibly enough, there are H'mong resistance fighters still in remote regions of Laos and Vietnam. They are now second and even third generation H'mong anti communist fighters. The Lao and Vietnamese governments pursue the H'mong like animals. They hunt them down in helicopters and indiscriminately mow down men, women, and children. They are still moi, as far as the communist regime is concerned!
In 2006, the aging Vang Pau and some of his associates were arrested by the Federal Agents (ATF) in California and charged with "attempt to overthrow a foreign government." Apparently Vang Pau and his colleagues bought some weapons and tried to send them to Laos, to the resistance fighters. How ironic! We had recruited these people and armed them and told them to fight the communists. For years they had been writing letters and appealing to various people in our government to help their brothers in Laos in Vietnam. Naturally, their pleas were ignored, so in desperation they decided to do something themselves. So now, we are charging them with "attempt to overthrow" the very same government that we had paid them to fight for over a decade! Fortunately, there was enough of an uproar from former CIA and Special Forces veterans that mysteriously in 2007 all charges were dropped.
The H'mong and the Degar, the montagnards are still actively pursued and persecuted by both the Lao and the Vietnamese governments. They are hunted down like animals. The UNHCR keeps filing reports, but as is typical of UN, it is doing nothing about it. There is even one lengthy report filed by UNHCR that is titled, Hunted Like Animals. Yet, nothing has been done to date by anyone! We, who are responsible for creating this situation are doing nothing! Yes, we did allow some who were lucky enough to get away to resettle in the U.S. We have the largest population of H'mong outside of Laos and Vietnam. Currently there are a bit over a quarter of a million H'mong scattered about the U.S. The largest number, about a hundred thousand, are in California. There are even some in Alaska! But the bulk of the population is still in those rugged mountains of Laos and Vietnam, and incredibly, still fighting the communist rulers of those countries!
We have this shame-full history of abandoning our allies, especially ethnic minorities like the H'mong. In another part of the world, the Kurds are facing the same situation. They too have been abandoned by us, twice, after throwing in their lot with us. But the Kurds, unlike the H'mong, are larger in numbers (there are about 35 million Kurds), are better organized, and capable of fending for themselves for the most part. The H'mong, on the otherhand, were so trusting of our support. They were trusting to a fault, childlike. In fact, one of the traits that most Americans who had contact with montaganrds (H'mong or Degar) noticed immediately was how trusting they were! These are simple people, guileless! They trusted us completely when we told them that if they fought for us, everything would be fine and we would be always there to support them. Little did they know about how our government operates and how duplicitous it can be! They couldn't comprehend that, they are just to trusting and they truly believed us! You can rest assured that if the Kurds knew of the H'mongs, they would not be fighting for us now!
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Our "Stealth?" Foreign Policy
Back in April, I did the first blog on our "deal" with Iran, the initial framework for the nuclear deal that we are trying to strike. I said then that it would not work, and that the deal was just too one-sided, all in favor of Iran. Netanyahu of Israel called it the worst deal in history, and for that he has been ostracized, criticized, and generally black-balled by the current administration. From the start we made concessions, releasing frozen funds and relaxing some of the sanctions. This, of course, was not announced to the American public! We also made concessions in the form of allowing Iran to enter Iraq to fight ISIS, thereby raising Iran's stock in the Islamic world. Like everything else connected with that deal, nothing has worked out in our favor and everything has helped Iran.
There has been one extension after another.....as soon as the round of talks fail to reach agreement by the deadline, we establish another deadline. We just set another deadline, until July 13. This is so typical of this administration's constant re-drawing of the "thin red-line." I keep using that expression because it is, in my opinion, the very crux of the problem that we have. Our president used that expression several years ago in describing how the U.S. would step-in should Syria's regime cross the "thin red-line" that he drew. Well, Syria has crossed that line more than a dozen times and we have done nothing! This, incidentally, gave Putin a very clear signal that our government wasn't going to back up its word! We all know what this led to in Ukraine! So now, we are constantly redrawing the line in our dealing with Iran. In the process, we are making more and more concessions! If the "worst deal of the Century" is ever actually struck, Iran will receive 150 billion dollars in cash assets immediately with no strings attached. What guarantee do we have that the money will not be used to finance terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah? None. Congress is desperately trying to come up with language that will insure that Iran will not use the money to finance terrorist activity, but so far, the administration has not said anything. No doubt because Iran insists on no strings being attached to these funds or any other concessions that we make.
Supposedly, the deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next ten or fifteen (the number of years have not been established) years. This is on Iran's word, there are no written guarantees, and we all know how good Iran's word is! In the meantime, with the relaxed sanctions and inflow of money, Iran will not only prosper but will benefit tremendously militarily as well. Iran will only agree to allow inspection of sites that they choose, and we are agreeing to that! When asked about the "delaying tactics" philosophy employed by the administration, Obama replied that it was better to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons now then ten years from now. What? I don't follow that logic! Shouldn't we just prevent them from having nukes all together?
I will not go into details, but there are numerous demands by Iran that we and the so-called "other" nations are agreeing to. The "other" nations, which include Russia and China, both have a vested interest in Iran's nuclear development and military build-up, since they are the biggest suppliers of material to Iran, both conventional and nuclear. So why shouldn't they agree? The better question is, why are we agreeing to this one sided deal? Are we trying to create another Islamic state with nuclear power? Pakistan already has nukes, but at least Pakistan is supposedly on our side. The idea that the deal is good because it will keep Iran from developing nukes in the next ten years or so just doesn't make sense. It sounds to me like, "as long as it doesn't happen on my watch" philosophy! It seems that is exactly what this administration is doing and thereby trying to establish a legacy that "Obama kept Iran from having nukes!"
But my frustration with this administration's foreign policy does not end with this disastrous nuclear deal that it is trying to strike. Let's look at our war against ISIS, the Islamic extremist group that is now overshadowing Al Qaeda and Taliban. A year ago President Obama on national television referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" of the Islamic terrorists. Those were his words, I am not making it up! Four months later he declared that the ISIS situation was "regional," apparently not something to be overly concerned with here in the U.S. Again, those were his words, not mine. Now, this week, he announced that the war against ISIS will be a long one that will last years, perhaps decades! How can you change your opinion so drastically? It goes from insignificant "junior varsity," to "regional," and now an enemy that we may be fighting for "decades"? So, if that is indeed what his opinion is currently, what are his plans? What is the strategy to defeat this cancer? Apparently it is very secret, "stealth" type strategy, which to date has not worked! At least that is what the administration would like us to think. Quite frankly, I don't think Washington has a strategy! Senator John McCain said it best just the other day when he criticized our "none" strategy against ISIS after Obama's announcement that it may take "decades" of fighting. McCain said that "if you are not winning the war, then there is only one answer, you are losing!"
Almost at the same time as Obama's announcement that we should be prepared to face ISIS for decades, the U.S. Army announced the reduction of its soldiers by 40,000 and civilian employees by 17,000 due to the shrinking budget. That will bring down our standing army to about 400,000 men. During the peak of our fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were over 500,000 soldiers on active duty. That was not enough, so that National Guard and Reserves were almost exhausted and regular army troops were seeing two three deployments in two year's time. In case of Special Operations troops, they were seeing even more frequent deployments! Enlistments and re-enlistments dropped dramatically because many troops were exhausted, couldn't take the frequent deployments. It was too much a financial and emotional strain and hell on their families!
So, let me get this straight. With the announcement by the president that we should be prepared to face ISIS for possibly decades, we are reducing the number of regular army troops. There is something that is not quite right in this scenario. Are our troops going to see even more frequent deployments than during the height of Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Has Washington discovered some kind of secret weapon that will replace the troops? We obviously have some sort of a "stealth" strategy to this war against ISIS. It may have not worked yet, but it will soon, or so it seems.
I don't wish to be so negative about the situation, but we seem to be going in the wrong direction, or to put it another way, we seem to have no direction! You might say that complaining is easy, but where are the solutions? Do I have anything to suggest or offer? Yes I do.
On the subject of nuclear deal with Iran. Forget it. Enough time and money has been already wasted. The sanctions were working, Iran was on the verge of collapsing, then we came in an offered them an "out." Why? So Obama can claim it as his legacy? It makes absolutely no sense. Just go back to the old sanctions, keep squeezing, Iran will give in!
On the subject of ISIS, very simply, get U.S. involved more directly and if need be, although not a popular move by any stretch, send U.S. ground troops. Obama's popularity with the liberals may drop in the polls, but it will get the job done.
But neither one of the things I suggested will take place, at least not any time soon.
There has been one extension after another.....as soon as the round of talks fail to reach agreement by the deadline, we establish another deadline. We just set another deadline, until July 13. This is so typical of this administration's constant re-drawing of the "thin red-line." I keep using that expression because it is, in my opinion, the very crux of the problem that we have. Our president used that expression several years ago in describing how the U.S. would step-in should Syria's regime cross the "thin red-line" that he drew. Well, Syria has crossed that line more than a dozen times and we have done nothing! This, incidentally, gave Putin a very clear signal that our government wasn't going to back up its word! We all know what this led to in Ukraine! So now, we are constantly redrawing the line in our dealing with Iran. In the process, we are making more and more concessions! If the "worst deal of the Century" is ever actually struck, Iran will receive 150 billion dollars in cash assets immediately with no strings attached. What guarantee do we have that the money will not be used to finance terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah? None. Congress is desperately trying to come up with language that will insure that Iran will not use the money to finance terrorist activity, but so far, the administration has not said anything. No doubt because Iran insists on no strings being attached to these funds or any other concessions that we make.
Supposedly, the deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next ten or fifteen (the number of years have not been established) years. This is on Iran's word, there are no written guarantees, and we all know how good Iran's word is! In the meantime, with the relaxed sanctions and inflow of money, Iran will not only prosper but will benefit tremendously militarily as well. Iran will only agree to allow inspection of sites that they choose, and we are agreeing to that! When asked about the "delaying tactics" philosophy employed by the administration, Obama replied that it was better to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons now then ten years from now. What? I don't follow that logic! Shouldn't we just prevent them from having nukes all together?
I will not go into details, but there are numerous demands by Iran that we and the so-called "other" nations are agreeing to. The "other" nations, which include Russia and China, both have a vested interest in Iran's nuclear development and military build-up, since they are the biggest suppliers of material to Iran, both conventional and nuclear. So why shouldn't they agree? The better question is, why are we agreeing to this one sided deal? Are we trying to create another Islamic state with nuclear power? Pakistan already has nukes, but at least Pakistan is supposedly on our side. The idea that the deal is good because it will keep Iran from developing nukes in the next ten years or so just doesn't make sense. It sounds to me like, "as long as it doesn't happen on my watch" philosophy! It seems that is exactly what this administration is doing and thereby trying to establish a legacy that "Obama kept Iran from having nukes!"
But my frustration with this administration's foreign policy does not end with this disastrous nuclear deal that it is trying to strike. Let's look at our war against ISIS, the Islamic extremist group that is now overshadowing Al Qaeda and Taliban. A year ago President Obama on national television referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" of the Islamic terrorists. Those were his words, I am not making it up! Four months later he declared that the ISIS situation was "regional," apparently not something to be overly concerned with here in the U.S. Again, those were his words, not mine. Now, this week, he announced that the war against ISIS will be a long one that will last years, perhaps decades! How can you change your opinion so drastically? It goes from insignificant "junior varsity," to "regional," and now an enemy that we may be fighting for "decades"? So, if that is indeed what his opinion is currently, what are his plans? What is the strategy to defeat this cancer? Apparently it is very secret, "stealth" type strategy, which to date has not worked! At least that is what the administration would like us to think. Quite frankly, I don't think Washington has a strategy! Senator John McCain said it best just the other day when he criticized our "none" strategy against ISIS after Obama's announcement that it may take "decades" of fighting. McCain said that "if you are not winning the war, then there is only one answer, you are losing!"
Almost at the same time as Obama's announcement that we should be prepared to face ISIS for decades, the U.S. Army announced the reduction of its soldiers by 40,000 and civilian employees by 17,000 due to the shrinking budget. That will bring down our standing army to about 400,000 men. During the peak of our fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were over 500,000 soldiers on active duty. That was not enough, so that National Guard and Reserves were almost exhausted and regular army troops were seeing two three deployments in two year's time. In case of Special Operations troops, they were seeing even more frequent deployments! Enlistments and re-enlistments dropped dramatically because many troops were exhausted, couldn't take the frequent deployments. It was too much a financial and emotional strain and hell on their families!
So, let me get this straight. With the announcement by the president that we should be prepared to face ISIS for possibly decades, we are reducing the number of regular army troops. There is something that is not quite right in this scenario. Are our troops going to see even more frequent deployments than during the height of Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Has Washington discovered some kind of secret weapon that will replace the troops? We obviously have some sort of a "stealth" strategy to this war against ISIS. It may have not worked yet, but it will soon, or so it seems.
I don't wish to be so negative about the situation, but we seem to be going in the wrong direction, or to put it another way, we seem to have no direction! You might say that complaining is easy, but where are the solutions? Do I have anything to suggest or offer? Yes I do.
On the subject of nuclear deal with Iran. Forget it. Enough time and money has been already wasted. The sanctions were working, Iran was on the verge of collapsing, then we came in an offered them an "out." Why? So Obama can claim it as his legacy? It makes absolutely no sense. Just go back to the old sanctions, keep squeezing, Iran will give in!
On the subject of ISIS, very simply, get U.S. involved more directly and if need be, although not a popular move by any stretch, send U.S. ground troops. Obama's popularity with the liberals may drop in the polls, but it will get the job done.
But neither one of the things I suggested will take place, at least not any time soon.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Pushkin
If you were to ask someone (other than a Russian!) who was the greatest Russian writer of the 19th Century, more than likely the response would be "Dostoevsky!" Fyodor Dostoevsky and his complex psychological novels have really caught the fancy of readers, especially outside of Russia. Tolstoy would also receive a nod, especially since to this day his War and Peace is considered in most literary circles to be the greatest novel ever written. However, it is Dostoevsky, with his "tortured soul" characters who seem to receive the most attention. Once in a while Ivan Turgenev might sneak-in, especially with his novel Fathers and Sons. Unfortunately, what some consider to be his greatest work, Sportsman's Sketches, i.e., Hunter's Album (and a half a dozen other names) is rarely mentioned when discussing great Russian works of literature. I have always wondered why there were so many names (translated titles) used for this work. This collection of short stories in Russian is titled Zapiski Ohotnika, which simply and accurately translates in English to Hunter's Notes. In Russian, zapiski means notes and ohotnik is hunter (ohotnika is possessive). Why the various English translations are titled differently has always been a puzzle to me. But, I am getting off the subject here, so back to the main topic.
A check of any reading list of various college literature classes will show that Dostoevsky pops up very often in short story or even novella form like The Notes from the Underground. Tolstoy too appears in short story form, but Turgenev very rarely, and Alexander Pushkin, almost never. Today, it would probably be almost impossible to get the students to read a full length novel like Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment of around 500 pages or Tolstoy's War and Peace of about 1200 pages! But back in the prehistoric era, when I went to school, students did read those monumental works. But regardless of current trends in reading, Pushkin is someone that is not read widely outside of Russia. Ask a Russian who the greatest 19th Russian writer was, and you would get an unequivocal response, "Pushkin!"
Alexander Pushkin is considered to be the father of modern Russian literature. He was a fascinating character and an extremely talented writer both of prose and poetry. Born in 1799 of aristocratic background, had he lived in America, he would have been identified as an African-American. Pushkin's maternal great grandfather was African. He was bought in Africa as a slave and brought to Russia by a European merchant who presented the little boy to the Russian Tsar, Peter the Great, as a gift. Peter did not want a slave, instead he officially adopted the little black boy and made him his son and part of Russian royalty. Hannibal, as he was called, grew up in privileged surroundings and married a minor Russian princess and his great granddaughter was Alexander Pushkin's mother. Although Pushkin's mother showed no physical characteristics of her African heritage, Alexander definitely had negro features. He had a dark complexion and kinky hair and thick lips. He clearly showed his African heritage, although he was only 1/8th black!
Alexander was a difficult child, always getting into trouble. His behavior problems continued through the school years, but he also showed his literary talent at a very young age when he began to publish poetry when he was still a teenager. Pushkin burst into fame with the writing of Boris Godunov, a theatrical drama. But it was his novel in verse, Eugene Onegin that gained him fame internationally. The novel in verse had a fairly simple story line, a young man, Eugene Onegin, meets a young girl but pays scant attention to her, she is (he thinks) too young for him. The girl falls madly in love with him, but he rebuffs her rather cruelly. Years later he meets her again and is struck by her beauty and is completely under her spell. However, the girl, Tatiana, remembers how he had told her she was not for him and how she had suffered. So she pays him back in kind. A simple story, but it caught the fancy of readers and Pushkin's writing managed to convey all of the feelings, the nuances that existed in that relationship. He showed his true mastery of the language. The name Tatiana (diminutive is Tanya) became so popular that more girls were named Tatiana for the next several years than any other name in Russia! It was only many years later that another girl's name became extremely popular, that of Natalia/Natasha of Tolstoy's War and Peace!
If anything, Pushkin led a colorful life. His financial state fluctuated as he made money with his writing but also spent it almost before he earned it. He married a beautiful woman, but the marriage was rocky and his wife was somewhat flighty! Alexander was hot tempered and very jealous. During his lifetime it is said that he was involved in more than two dozen duels. His final duel was with a man that he accused of trying to seduce his wife. He was shot in that duel and died as a result of the wound at the age of 38.
Ask any Russian, and they will tell you that Alexander Pushkin was the greatest Russian writer that ever lived, although their own favorite might be someone else. So, do yourself a favor. Next time you feel like reading something different, pick up a work by Pushkin, a poem, a short story, or even a novel. You won't regret it, and it will open up a whole new world for you.
A check of any reading list of various college literature classes will show that Dostoevsky pops up very often in short story or even novella form like The Notes from the Underground. Tolstoy too appears in short story form, but Turgenev very rarely, and Alexander Pushkin, almost never. Today, it would probably be almost impossible to get the students to read a full length novel like Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment of around 500 pages or Tolstoy's War and Peace of about 1200 pages! But back in the prehistoric era, when I went to school, students did read those monumental works. But regardless of current trends in reading, Pushkin is someone that is not read widely outside of Russia. Ask a Russian who the greatest 19th Russian writer was, and you would get an unequivocal response, "Pushkin!"
Alexander Pushkin is considered to be the father of modern Russian literature. He was a fascinating character and an extremely talented writer both of prose and poetry. Born in 1799 of aristocratic background, had he lived in America, he would have been identified as an African-American. Pushkin's maternal great grandfather was African. He was bought in Africa as a slave and brought to Russia by a European merchant who presented the little boy to the Russian Tsar, Peter the Great, as a gift. Peter did not want a slave, instead he officially adopted the little black boy and made him his son and part of Russian royalty. Hannibal, as he was called, grew up in privileged surroundings and married a minor Russian princess and his great granddaughter was Alexander Pushkin's mother. Although Pushkin's mother showed no physical characteristics of her African heritage, Alexander definitely had negro features. He had a dark complexion and kinky hair and thick lips. He clearly showed his African heritage, although he was only 1/8th black!
Alexander was a difficult child, always getting into trouble. His behavior problems continued through the school years, but he also showed his literary talent at a very young age when he began to publish poetry when he was still a teenager. Pushkin burst into fame with the writing of Boris Godunov, a theatrical drama. But it was his novel in verse, Eugene Onegin that gained him fame internationally. The novel in verse had a fairly simple story line, a young man, Eugene Onegin, meets a young girl but pays scant attention to her, she is (he thinks) too young for him. The girl falls madly in love with him, but he rebuffs her rather cruelly. Years later he meets her again and is struck by her beauty and is completely under her spell. However, the girl, Tatiana, remembers how he had told her she was not for him and how she had suffered. So she pays him back in kind. A simple story, but it caught the fancy of readers and Pushkin's writing managed to convey all of the feelings, the nuances that existed in that relationship. He showed his true mastery of the language. The name Tatiana (diminutive is Tanya) became so popular that more girls were named Tatiana for the next several years than any other name in Russia! It was only many years later that another girl's name became extremely popular, that of Natalia/Natasha of Tolstoy's War and Peace!
If anything, Pushkin led a colorful life. His financial state fluctuated as he made money with his writing but also spent it almost before he earned it. He married a beautiful woman, but the marriage was rocky and his wife was somewhat flighty! Alexander was hot tempered and very jealous. During his lifetime it is said that he was involved in more than two dozen duels. His final duel was with a man that he accused of trying to seduce his wife. He was shot in that duel and died as a result of the wound at the age of 38.
Ask any Russian, and they will tell you that Alexander Pushkin was the greatest Russian writer that ever lived, although their own favorite might be someone else. So, do yourself a favor. Next time you feel like reading something different, pick up a work by Pushkin, a poem, a short story, or even a novel. You won't regret it, and it will open up a whole new world for you.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Musashi
Every country, every culture, has a hero or heroes that are bigger than life, that demonstrate unusual skills and ability. In the earlier blogs on "national character" I mentioned some, like the great Korean naval commander Yi Soong Shin. America is a young country, but we too have our share of "national heroes" such as Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett. These heroes of the past are bigger than life, and no doubt some if not most of their accomplishments and deeds are somewhat embellished....sometimes very liberally! But nevertheless, their existence, their accomplishments, for the most part are based on fact. Both Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett were crack shots, and you can see where America's ties to gun culture got its start. America is just too young of a country and culture to have developed a sword culture like some of the older countries. So, whether we like it or not, we are a country with a folk culture that is strongly tied to firearms. To deny it is foolish, like denying our own identity. Some of us may like French wine or other European "goodies," but we are not Europeans, we must always remember that.
The Japanese have a very strong sense of national identity. In the blogs on Japanese "national character" I made mention of the Ako Incident, the story of the 47 Ronin. That is indeed one of the most identifiable aspects of Japanese culture, their "national character." But Japan does not lack in heroes or figures that are bigger than life, those who represent the very finest aspect of Japanese character or culture. The sword in Japanese culture is much more than a gun is in our culture. The sword, the traditional Japanese sword has an almost mystical significance in its role in Japanese culture. Japan is a country and culture that developed sword making into an art form, and along with it, sword fighting has evolved into an incredibly sophisticated technique. There were many great sword masters in Japan's past, but none was greater than Miyamoto Musashi.
Miyamoto Musashi was born c1584, the exact date is unavailable. His death, however, is accurately recorded as June 13, 1645. Musashi, also known as Shinnen Takezo, Miyamoto Bennosuke, and by the Buddhist name of Niten Doraku (he became a Buddhist monk), was the greatest sword master Japan has ever known. He developed a sword fighting school known as Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Niten ryu style), was an author of several books on sword fighting and tactics, including the most well known The Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho). He was an accomplished artist, especially in the style of sumie, and a respected poet!
Musashi's father was a sword master, so the young Musashi started training at the age of seven. He was a good size kid for his age and strong, so he developed skills very quickly. Even at that early age, he began to implement some techniques of his own. He is said to have fought his first duel at the age of 13! At that young age, he brashly challenged Arima Kihei of the rival sword fighting school Kashima Shinto Ryu, and defeated him! At 16 he defeated another well known swordsman in a duel and went on to Kyoto where he fought many more duels. It was during this time that he developed the Nitenchi sword style (two swords). It is said that he fought in over 60 duels, all of which he won! He died of cancer at the age of 60 or so, he did not die by the sword!
Musashi's most famous duel was fought on Funajima Island located between Honshu and Kyushu. He was in his 30s at the time and semi retired, preferring to live more or less as a recluse and a Buddhist monk. However, his fame was widespread and just like in the old West in America, young "guns" were constantly seeking him out and challenging him to a duel. Such was the case with, Sasaki Kojiro, considered the best swordsman in Japan at the time, only second to Musashi! Sasaki, a handsome, impeccably dressed dandy was in complete contrast to Musashi who was unshaven, and nick-named saru - monkey, because he looked like one! Sasaki challenged Musashi so Musashi picked the spot and time.....sunrise on the beach on Funajima.
Sasaki arrived early with his retinue and was ready, eagerly pacing the beach. Musashi, on the other hand took his time and arrived very late. During the long trip to the island in the row boat, Musashi fashioned a long sword from a spare oak oar in the boat. He arrived on the island with the sun brightly shining on his back. By this time Sasaki was furious, having waited for a long time. On seeing Musashi get out of the boat, Sasaki rushed at him, drawing his sword. Musashi had positioned himself in such a way that the sun was blinding Sasaki. As Sasaki attacked, two things were at his disadvantage. One, the sun was blinding him, and two, he couldn't recognize the fact that Musashi held a wooden sword. When Sasaki struck, Musashi fended off the blow and the sound of metal striking wood took Sasaki completely by surprise, just enough to throw his timing off. Musashi struck him between the eyes and killed him. Yes, you can kill a man by striking a powerful blow with a wooden sword on the head! Musashi had killed several of his opponents with a wooden stave or sword.
After killing Sasaki, while his retinue stood by dumbstruck, Musashi calmly got back in the row boat and told the boat man to take him back!
It is said that Musashi's reflexes were such that he could catch flies with chop sticks! He developed his fly catching skills first by catching them in the air with his hand, later moving on to using chopsticks. If indeed he could snatch flies out of the air with a pair of chop sticks, his reflexes must have been incredible!
Miyamoto Musashi was the greatest swordsman in Japanese history. He is revered, idolized, and studied. His The Book of Five Rings is read not just by those interested in sword fighting, but even by businessmen who want to improve their negotiating skills! There were many books written about him and an Academy Award winning movie, the Samurai Trilogy, was made by Hiroshi Inagaki, one of Japan's top directors. Naturally, the movie starred Toshiro Mifune!
During World War Two, in desperate times, Japan called upon the suicide planes, the kamikaze to defend its homeland. The kamikaze, translated as divine wind actually should be translated as god wind. It was the name given to the great typhoon that sank the invading Mongol fleet in the 12th Century thereby saving Japan from Mongol rule like the rest of Asia! Also, in the time of need, Japan built two giant battleships to protect its shores. The twin battleships, the largest ever built by anyone, were called Yamato (Japan) and Musashi! Now some claim that the ship was named after the region (province or prefecture) called Musashi. America named ships after states, like battleship Arizona, Missouri, etc., but not so with Japan! Musashi was named after that great swordsman, Miyamoto Musashi. Unfortunately for Japan, neither Yamato or Musashi played a significant role in the war, both were sunk before they could contribute to Japan's war effort. Just for comparison....the Musashi was a 72 ton battleship. The great German Bismark was 41 tons, the British Prince of Wales was 40 tons, and our own largest battleship, the Missouri was 43 tons!
Glamorized movies, novels and battleships notwithstanding, Miyamoto Musashi was a great swordsman by any standards. Even if many of the accounts of his duels and sword fighting skills were exaggerated, he was still a great, incomparable sword fighter. Just think about it. If he only fought half of the duels that he is said to have fought, he still would have fought and survived 30 duels! I don't think there are many swordsmen of any country or culture who can claim that kind of a record!
The Japanese have a very strong sense of national identity. In the blogs on Japanese "national character" I made mention of the Ako Incident, the story of the 47 Ronin. That is indeed one of the most identifiable aspects of Japanese culture, their "national character." But Japan does not lack in heroes or figures that are bigger than life, those who represent the very finest aspect of Japanese character or culture. The sword in Japanese culture is much more than a gun is in our culture. The sword, the traditional Japanese sword has an almost mystical significance in its role in Japanese culture. Japan is a country and culture that developed sword making into an art form, and along with it, sword fighting has evolved into an incredibly sophisticated technique. There were many great sword masters in Japan's past, but none was greater than Miyamoto Musashi.
Miyamoto Musashi was born c1584, the exact date is unavailable. His death, however, is accurately recorded as June 13, 1645. Musashi, also known as Shinnen Takezo, Miyamoto Bennosuke, and by the Buddhist name of Niten Doraku (he became a Buddhist monk), was the greatest sword master Japan has ever known. He developed a sword fighting school known as Hyoho Niten Ichi-ryu (Niten ryu style), was an author of several books on sword fighting and tactics, including the most well known The Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho). He was an accomplished artist, especially in the style of sumie, and a respected poet!
Musashi's father was a sword master, so the young Musashi started training at the age of seven. He was a good size kid for his age and strong, so he developed skills very quickly. Even at that early age, he began to implement some techniques of his own. He is said to have fought his first duel at the age of 13! At that young age, he brashly challenged Arima Kihei of the rival sword fighting school Kashima Shinto Ryu, and defeated him! At 16 he defeated another well known swordsman in a duel and went on to Kyoto where he fought many more duels. It was during this time that he developed the Nitenchi sword style (two swords). It is said that he fought in over 60 duels, all of which he won! He died of cancer at the age of 60 or so, he did not die by the sword!
Musashi's most famous duel was fought on Funajima Island located between Honshu and Kyushu. He was in his 30s at the time and semi retired, preferring to live more or less as a recluse and a Buddhist monk. However, his fame was widespread and just like in the old West in America, young "guns" were constantly seeking him out and challenging him to a duel. Such was the case with, Sasaki Kojiro, considered the best swordsman in Japan at the time, only second to Musashi! Sasaki, a handsome, impeccably dressed dandy was in complete contrast to Musashi who was unshaven, and nick-named saru - monkey, because he looked like one! Sasaki challenged Musashi so Musashi picked the spot and time.....sunrise on the beach on Funajima.
Sasaki arrived early with his retinue and was ready, eagerly pacing the beach. Musashi, on the other hand took his time and arrived very late. During the long trip to the island in the row boat, Musashi fashioned a long sword from a spare oak oar in the boat. He arrived on the island with the sun brightly shining on his back. By this time Sasaki was furious, having waited for a long time. On seeing Musashi get out of the boat, Sasaki rushed at him, drawing his sword. Musashi had positioned himself in such a way that the sun was blinding Sasaki. As Sasaki attacked, two things were at his disadvantage. One, the sun was blinding him, and two, he couldn't recognize the fact that Musashi held a wooden sword. When Sasaki struck, Musashi fended off the blow and the sound of metal striking wood took Sasaki completely by surprise, just enough to throw his timing off. Musashi struck him between the eyes and killed him. Yes, you can kill a man by striking a powerful blow with a wooden sword on the head! Musashi had killed several of his opponents with a wooden stave or sword.
After killing Sasaki, while his retinue stood by dumbstruck, Musashi calmly got back in the row boat and told the boat man to take him back!
It is said that Musashi's reflexes were such that he could catch flies with chop sticks! He developed his fly catching skills first by catching them in the air with his hand, later moving on to using chopsticks. If indeed he could snatch flies out of the air with a pair of chop sticks, his reflexes must have been incredible!
Miyamoto Musashi was the greatest swordsman in Japanese history. He is revered, idolized, and studied. His The Book of Five Rings is read not just by those interested in sword fighting, but even by businessmen who want to improve their negotiating skills! There were many books written about him and an Academy Award winning movie, the Samurai Trilogy, was made by Hiroshi Inagaki, one of Japan's top directors. Naturally, the movie starred Toshiro Mifune!
During World War Two, in desperate times, Japan called upon the suicide planes, the kamikaze to defend its homeland. The kamikaze, translated as divine wind actually should be translated as god wind. It was the name given to the great typhoon that sank the invading Mongol fleet in the 12th Century thereby saving Japan from Mongol rule like the rest of Asia! Also, in the time of need, Japan built two giant battleships to protect its shores. The twin battleships, the largest ever built by anyone, were called Yamato (Japan) and Musashi! Now some claim that the ship was named after the region (province or prefecture) called Musashi. America named ships after states, like battleship Arizona, Missouri, etc., but not so with Japan! Musashi was named after that great swordsman, Miyamoto Musashi. Unfortunately for Japan, neither Yamato or Musashi played a significant role in the war, both were sunk before they could contribute to Japan's war effort. Just for comparison....the Musashi was a 72 ton battleship. The great German Bismark was 41 tons, the British Prince of Wales was 40 tons, and our own largest battleship, the Missouri was 43 tons!
Glamorized movies, novels and battleships notwithstanding, Miyamoto Musashi was a great swordsman by any standards. Even if many of the accounts of his duels and sword fighting skills were exaggerated, he was still a great, incomparable sword fighter. Just think about it. If he only fought half of the duels that he is said to have fought, he still would have fought and survived 30 duels! I don't think there are many swordsmen of any country or culture who can claim that kind of a record!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)