Earlier there was a posting on facebook about the retirement pay differences between the average member of the Legislative Branch of our government and the military. The difference was quite staggering. But this did not really show the gross unfairness of the pay system that is employed by our government across all areas, not just retirement, and it goes back many, many years.
In the 1960s, during the period when young men were sent to Vietnam, the average pay of an E-3 (Private First Class in the Army and Marines), was something in the neighborhood of a bit over $100 a month! With combat pay, that amount increased by about $50 or so. An E-5 (Sergeant) made a bit over $200 a month, and a 2nd Lieutenant made around $300! So, all in all, an average serviceman made anywhere between $2000 to $4000 a year! For this amount he spent a miserable year in Vietnam facing hostile fire and horrible living conditions. Almost 60,000 returned in body bags and thousands upon thousands were maimed and wounded, and countless lives were destroyed and had to be rebuilt. During that same period, the salaries of our Congressmen and Senators went from $30,000 a year to $40,000 a year. The military received barely any raises at all! There is something terribly wrong when young men who are asked to go and lay their lives down for their country barely earned enough money to keep them in beer and cigarettes, while the Congressmen and Senators who sent them in harms way earned 100% to 200% more!
It is not surprising that during that period most servicemen preferred to be assigned overseas where the dollar went a lot further! At most overseas posts and bases, the same PFC that barely could keep himself "afloat" back stateside, was in pretty good financial shape overseas. For married enlisted men and junior grade officers in particular, overseas assignments were a pretty good deal. Depending on the country, they could hire maids and even afford to eat out once in a while. By mid 1970s, after the end of Vietnam, a lot changed when the dollar lost its value against foreign currencies. The enlisted personnel in particular were in dire financial straits overseas! It was embarrassing for the United States! At some posts in Germany the local town's people had to help out the American servicemen's families who were in financial trouble! Back home (even to this day!) many lower ranking enlisted men's families had to go on food stamps! Food stamps for families of our military that protect this country! Meanwhile, the Congressional and Senatorial salaries continued to climb!
Today, the annual pay of Congressmen and Senators begin at around $180,000. But that doesn't tell the whole story. They also get all sorts of allowances and special pay. On the average, for 2015 that is estimated to be around $1,266,909.00 for each member of Congress and Senate! That money is to pay for staff salaries and other expenses. Since the 1990s, the annual amount averaged around $944,671.00 and climbed every year! So, using the 2015 amount, an average Congressman or Senator is paid around $1,435,909.00 a year! In contrast, an average E-5 in the military today makes $26,175.00 a year. With housing and other allowances, that pay may go up to around $35,000 a year, roughly a bit over 2% of what the Congressmen and Senators make! Yet, this same E-5 is called upon to disrupt their normal life, family life if they are married, and deploy to Afghanistan or other region and place their life in danger.
I have a solution to this terrible inequity! Cut the Congressional and Senatorial allowances in half and use the proceeds to increase the pay for the military! Better yet, take the whole amount and use it for the military. The Congress and the Senate have not done anything lately except to constantly bicker and carry out partisan politics. What have they done lately, domestically or internationally, to improve our or the world's situation? For that matter, what have they done in the last decade, two or three decades, to deserve all that pay! But of course, I am just being sarcastic, something like that will never happen, after all, it is Congress that controls the funding! That is why they are able to keep giving themselves raises while everyone else sits begging!
We have a system that is broken and is barely limping along. Somebody, someone, has to fix it. The Congress and Senate won't do it, they are too busy fighting over partisan politics and coming up with pork barrel legislation. Unfortunately, we have not had a president in a long, long time who could control the Legislative branch, so I guess it will be business as usual, until something does happen to cause a change.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
Patriotism
With the recent announcement by Pentagon that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has been declared a deserter, there have been quite a few comments posted on facebook pages. I have earlier written in a blog that in my opinion he was a deserter and should be treated as such. However, recent comments on facebook tell me that not everyone feels the same way. There are those who insist that he should be given benefit of doubt and every avenue should be explored before a decision is made as to his guilt or whether he is indeed a deserter. Others seem to feel the same as I do, that he is a deserter since he walked off his post in a combat zone.
According to the military definition, one does not have to be in a combat zone to be classified as a deserter for leaving their post. Anyone leaving their post of assignment without permission from a higher authority is considered absent without leave or AWOL. The AWOL status remains until 30 days have expired, at which point the missing serviceman becomes a deserter. In this way, there were many servicemen who became deserters when they failed to return to their units after authorized leave of absence, if their absence was more than 30 days.
There were many deserters during Vietnam who fled to Canada and Sweden, as well as those who just stayed hidden within the U.S. Of course there were also those rare cases where someone left their post in combat and ended up with the NVA. There have been deserters even during peacetime, when there were no wars being fought.
To me, the definition is quite simple, less than 30 days absence without permission is AWOL, over 30 days is desertion. That is how I understood it while I was in the service, and that is how I still understand it. Perhaps it is simplistic and I need to think in more detailed and complicated terms such as: What caused the person to leave his post? What were extenuating circumstances that caused him to leave post? Was there a physical or medical reason? There could be a multitude of questions. But I don't see it that way because the military does not either. It isn't that the military is necessarily right, but it is their rule, their regulation, and it cannot become embroiled in complicated reasons and details. Like everything else in the military, it should be kept simple, clear cut. So, to be a deserter you don't have to have left your post without permission in a combat zone. Even in peace time, if you leave your post without permission for more than 30 days, you are classified a deserter.
We don't shoot deserters anymore, in fact, many of the deserters of Vietnam era never even spent a day in prison! They were given amnesty! There were over 21,000 deserters during World War Two and only one was executed. The last American deserter to face a firing squad was during World War Two, an Army Private Eddie Slovik, and it was questionable whether he really deserted or it was just stupidity! Private Slovik did not leave his post in a combat zone, he simply failed to report to his unit and was gone for more than 30 days without permission!
How times change. Poor Slovik was killed by a firing squad for a "questionable" desertion. Yet a bunch of soldiers who deserted during Vietnam some 25 years later were all forgiven. At least during World War Two deserters had to serve some prison time! By the way, Vietnam era deserters for the most part did not leave their post in combat, they simply did not return to their units after furlough! Today, in an era of political correctness, a soldier walks off his post in a combat zone, leaves a note to his CO explaining how he hated the army and was leaving (he also sent a detailed email to his parents, outlining his reasons for desertion) for parts unknown and is captured by Taliban. He spends five years with Taliban, initially making anti-US videos (yes, I know, he claims he made the videos under duress, but Tokyo Rose also made radio broadcasts under duress and she spent 15 years in prison and she was not even in the army!), and some folks are not comfortable with the fact that he has been declared a deserter? I can't quite understand that.
The definition or understanding of the meaning of patriotism seems to have changed dramatically, or so it seems. Perhaps it started with all of those anti-war protests during Vietnam. But for whatever reason, there seems to be two schools of thought on the subject today, and I don't mean the Tea Party's version and the Democrats version. I am simply referring to the fact that patriotism is no longer viewed the same way by some as it used to be in the past.
I remember during Vietnam, I knew a particular Lieutenant who was exceptionally "gung-ho" and was itching to go to Vietnam and "earn his stripes" so-to-speak. He spent a tour in Vietnam and saw some heavy action. He was reassigned to Okinawa, and when he was ordered back to go to Vietnam, he refused! He told the press that he was against the war in Vietnam, that he saw it as a racist war and that U.S. had no business being in that country. He said he was not going to risk his life for something that he did not believe! He was not a member of the minority and he was also a West Point graduate, so his remarks and action were not only surprising but embarrassing to his unit, the Army Special Forces! No member of the Special Forces had ever refused to go back into combat! There were many officers and enlisted men in the Special Forces who did not particularly agree with our policies or execution of the war. But, they all served honorably, to the best of their ability. The Lieutenant was court martialed but never imprisoned, just drummed out of the army. That was it, he disappeared, only to resurface in California briefly and write some anti war articles for a leftist publication.
In contrast, my very good friend "Doc" Barnes was badly wounded in Vietnam and almost released from the army on medical grounds. The army insisted that his wounds would not allow him to serve actively. Doc campaigned vigorously to be reinstated and finally got his wish and was put back on active duty and immediately volunteered to return to Vietnam. I had many talks with Doc, he was a highly intelligent, well read individual. He had studied to become a priest but chose to leave the seminary and enlist in the army! He was offered a commission but turned it down and chose to remain an NCO. He was one of the best read persons I had ever met. Doc did not agree with our policies and the war in Vietnam. But, as he told me on a number of occasions, he was a soldier and did what he was ordered to do. Besides, he said that he was an American soldier, and if America was at war, then he was going to support its effort. As long as his orders did not ask him to do anything illegal, he was going to do it to the best of his ability. Doc was a patriot, the Lieutenant was not and neither is Bergdahl, in my opinion.
Very simply put, Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter. The fact that he gained his freedom in exchange for five Taliban prisoners is a travesty! He won't face a firing squad like poor Eddie Slovik, and chances are he won't even face any prison time. There is no doubt that his lawyer will convince everyone that he had suffered enough at the hands of the Taliban. But at the very least, he should be stripped of his rank to private (he should have never been promoted in the first place!) and declared a deserter, once and for all!
According to the military definition, one does not have to be in a combat zone to be classified as a deserter for leaving their post. Anyone leaving their post of assignment without permission from a higher authority is considered absent without leave or AWOL. The AWOL status remains until 30 days have expired, at which point the missing serviceman becomes a deserter. In this way, there were many servicemen who became deserters when they failed to return to their units after authorized leave of absence, if their absence was more than 30 days.
There were many deserters during Vietnam who fled to Canada and Sweden, as well as those who just stayed hidden within the U.S. Of course there were also those rare cases where someone left their post in combat and ended up with the NVA. There have been deserters even during peacetime, when there were no wars being fought.
To me, the definition is quite simple, less than 30 days absence without permission is AWOL, over 30 days is desertion. That is how I understood it while I was in the service, and that is how I still understand it. Perhaps it is simplistic and I need to think in more detailed and complicated terms such as: What caused the person to leave his post? What were extenuating circumstances that caused him to leave post? Was there a physical or medical reason? There could be a multitude of questions. But I don't see it that way because the military does not either. It isn't that the military is necessarily right, but it is their rule, their regulation, and it cannot become embroiled in complicated reasons and details. Like everything else in the military, it should be kept simple, clear cut. So, to be a deserter you don't have to have left your post without permission in a combat zone. Even in peace time, if you leave your post without permission for more than 30 days, you are classified a deserter.
We don't shoot deserters anymore, in fact, many of the deserters of Vietnam era never even spent a day in prison! They were given amnesty! There were over 21,000 deserters during World War Two and only one was executed. The last American deserter to face a firing squad was during World War Two, an Army Private Eddie Slovik, and it was questionable whether he really deserted or it was just stupidity! Private Slovik did not leave his post in a combat zone, he simply failed to report to his unit and was gone for more than 30 days without permission!
How times change. Poor Slovik was killed by a firing squad for a "questionable" desertion. Yet a bunch of soldiers who deserted during Vietnam some 25 years later were all forgiven. At least during World War Two deserters had to serve some prison time! By the way, Vietnam era deserters for the most part did not leave their post in combat, they simply did not return to their units after furlough! Today, in an era of political correctness, a soldier walks off his post in a combat zone, leaves a note to his CO explaining how he hated the army and was leaving (he also sent a detailed email to his parents, outlining his reasons for desertion) for parts unknown and is captured by Taliban. He spends five years with Taliban, initially making anti-US videos (yes, I know, he claims he made the videos under duress, but Tokyo Rose also made radio broadcasts under duress and she spent 15 years in prison and she was not even in the army!), and some folks are not comfortable with the fact that he has been declared a deserter? I can't quite understand that.
The definition or understanding of the meaning of patriotism seems to have changed dramatically, or so it seems. Perhaps it started with all of those anti-war protests during Vietnam. But for whatever reason, there seems to be two schools of thought on the subject today, and I don't mean the Tea Party's version and the Democrats version. I am simply referring to the fact that patriotism is no longer viewed the same way by some as it used to be in the past.
I remember during Vietnam, I knew a particular Lieutenant who was exceptionally "gung-ho" and was itching to go to Vietnam and "earn his stripes" so-to-speak. He spent a tour in Vietnam and saw some heavy action. He was reassigned to Okinawa, and when he was ordered back to go to Vietnam, he refused! He told the press that he was against the war in Vietnam, that he saw it as a racist war and that U.S. had no business being in that country. He said he was not going to risk his life for something that he did not believe! He was not a member of the minority and he was also a West Point graduate, so his remarks and action were not only surprising but embarrassing to his unit, the Army Special Forces! No member of the Special Forces had ever refused to go back into combat! There were many officers and enlisted men in the Special Forces who did not particularly agree with our policies or execution of the war. But, they all served honorably, to the best of their ability. The Lieutenant was court martialed but never imprisoned, just drummed out of the army. That was it, he disappeared, only to resurface in California briefly and write some anti war articles for a leftist publication.
In contrast, my very good friend "Doc" Barnes was badly wounded in Vietnam and almost released from the army on medical grounds. The army insisted that his wounds would not allow him to serve actively. Doc campaigned vigorously to be reinstated and finally got his wish and was put back on active duty and immediately volunteered to return to Vietnam. I had many talks with Doc, he was a highly intelligent, well read individual. He had studied to become a priest but chose to leave the seminary and enlist in the army! He was offered a commission but turned it down and chose to remain an NCO. He was one of the best read persons I had ever met. Doc did not agree with our policies and the war in Vietnam. But, as he told me on a number of occasions, he was a soldier and did what he was ordered to do. Besides, he said that he was an American soldier, and if America was at war, then he was going to support its effort. As long as his orders did not ask him to do anything illegal, he was going to do it to the best of his ability. Doc was a patriot, the Lieutenant was not and neither is Bergdahl, in my opinion.
Very simply put, Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter. The fact that he gained his freedom in exchange for five Taliban prisoners is a travesty! He won't face a firing squad like poor Eddie Slovik, and chances are he won't even face any prison time. There is no doubt that his lawyer will convince everyone that he had suffered enough at the hands of the Taliban. But at the very least, he should be stripped of his rank to private (he should have never been promoted in the first place!) and declared a deserter, once and for all!
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Rising Iran, the New Power in the Middle East
For some reason, we have never been able to successfully establish control or develop solid ties with countries in the Middle East other than Israel. No doubt part of it has to do with the dominant religion in that area, but there is much more to that, religion is not the only thing. Israel has been the only country with which we had a long, sustained relationship over the years, but even that is on shaky grounds today as a rift appears to have developed!
Two of the biggest and supposedly influential countries in the region are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both incidentally are predominantly of Sunni faith. Turkey is another country that is mostly Sunni, but Turkey does not have a state religion and is generally considered to be outside of the Arab world. We have maintained more or less friendly relations with all three of those countries for several decades, but the rest of the countries seem to go from one extreme to another. One day they are our "allies" and the next they are our enemies!
Iran has been a thorn at our side for several decades, ever since the country was taken over by Ayatollah Khomeni and his revolutionary guard in 1979. Ironically, Iran was our strongest ally in the region under the old Shah regime! But that was not to be the case with the new Iran.
We suffered through humiliation in the eyes of most of the world while our embassy staff was held hostage for a year, and we sat around doing nothing, or so it seemed. It was obvious that the new Iranian government didn't give a damn about international law regarding diplomatic immunity and played by their own rules! The United States, the "great satan," along with Israel had been identified as the sworn enemies of Iran in particular and Islam in general. They openly stated that their goal was to obliterate both the "great satan" and the "Zionists" from this world! That had been Iran's avowed policy since 1979 and it has not changed!
It was extremely important for us to keep Iran's influence in the region to a minimum, otherwise all other countries might swing in that direction! The old "domino theory" that we used to worry about during the old days of communism is very much alive in this case. It was obvious right from the start when Khomeni took over Iran that much like communists of old, they were going to export their ideology and try to get as many "converts" as they could.
Iran's first surrogate was born in 1982 when about 1500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards went to Lebanon and established a movement that was called Hezbollah. Today, Hezbollah has about 65,000 guerrilla fighters and are now a part of the Lebanese government and wield a lot of influence in that region. Hezbollah has also moved in to Syria and are now a part of that civil war! Hezbollah has also united with Hamas of Palestinian Authority. Hamas had reached out and proposed a united front.
From the start, both Hezbollah and Hamas had sworn to eliminate Israel from this earth. They were both created specifically to fight Israel!. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas is now a part of the Palestinian Authority government. Do you wonder why there is such a problem with negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority? Israel would be committing suicide if it agreed to a Palestinian state with a government that has Hamas in it!
It now appears that Iran's second successful surrogate is the Shiite Houthie rebel group that has just overtaken the Yemeni government and is in the midst of a power struggle with Al Qaeda and ISIS elements in that region. Although we were very heavily involved in supporting the old government and fighting Al Qaeda in the region, we have completely pulled out of Yemen, so it is now Iranian, for all practical purposes.
Our participation in nuclear talks with Iran has given Iran tremendous boost in prestige in the region. After all, if Iran can bring the world's most powerful nation to the negotiating table, they must be an "important" country, not some saber-rattling, rag-tag revolutionary group! To countries that are seeking "respect" and recognition, it is vitally important to have the United States recognize them as an equal and negotiate directly. That is why Kim Jong Un and North Korea is constantly acting up, insisting that the United States be the major player at all talks! Not everyone sees things the same way as we do. In some cases, what we see as failure is seen as success in some cultures!
Now, with Iran's very visible presence in Iraq fighting ISIS at our invitation, their stock has soared! To compound the situation for us, Iran is viewed as a more successful participant in the fight against ISIS than the U.S.! The Iranian "advisors" are actually participating in combat, side by side with the Iraqis, their involvement is very "visible" to the population, to the Arab press in particular. Our "advisors" are forbidden to engage in combat, so they are unseen and regarded as ineffectual. The lack of visibility of U.S. troops in combat is also seen as America's unwillingness to sacrifice American lives and instead use Iraqis in harms way. Of course that is not true, our advisors are in harms way even though they do not participate in direct combat. But, that is how it is perceived by the people in the region and the Iranians are not doing anything to dispel that view. Like I said, things are perceived different in that part of the world.
No doubt both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are feeling very nervous about the current situation. They don't want Iran to spread its influence, they don't want to be surrounded by a powerful Shiite coalition, which Iran could create. What a mess! That region has been a mess for a long, long time, and it isn't about to change any time soon. Unfortunately, it seems we have inadvertently helped make the region into even a bigger mess with the rise of Iran. Iran, it seems, will be the new power in the Middle East, unless someone stops their rise, which is unlikely to take place in this political climate.
Two of the biggest and supposedly influential countries in the region are Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both incidentally are predominantly of Sunni faith. Turkey is another country that is mostly Sunni, but Turkey does not have a state religion and is generally considered to be outside of the Arab world. We have maintained more or less friendly relations with all three of those countries for several decades, but the rest of the countries seem to go from one extreme to another. One day they are our "allies" and the next they are our enemies!
Iran has been a thorn at our side for several decades, ever since the country was taken over by Ayatollah Khomeni and his revolutionary guard in 1979. Ironically, Iran was our strongest ally in the region under the old Shah regime! But that was not to be the case with the new Iran.
We suffered through humiliation in the eyes of most of the world while our embassy staff was held hostage for a year, and we sat around doing nothing, or so it seemed. It was obvious that the new Iranian government didn't give a damn about international law regarding diplomatic immunity and played by their own rules! The United States, the "great satan," along with Israel had been identified as the sworn enemies of Iran in particular and Islam in general. They openly stated that their goal was to obliterate both the "great satan" and the "Zionists" from this world! That had been Iran's avowed policy since 1979 and it has not changed!
It was extremely important for us to keep Iran's influence in the region to a minimum, otherwise all other countries might swing in that direction! The old "domino theory" that we used to worry about during the old days of communism is very much alive in this case. It was obvious right from the start when Khomeni took over Iran that much like communists of old, they were going to export their ideology and try to get as many "converts" as they could.
Iran's first surrogate was born in 1982 when about 1500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards went to Lebanon and established a movement that was called Hezbollah. Today, Hezbollah has about 65,000 guerrilla fighters and are now a part of the Lebanese government and wield a lot of influence in that region. Hezbollah has also moved in to Syria and are now a part of that civil war! Hezbollah has also united with Hamas of Palestinian Authority. Hamas had reached out and proposed a united front.
From the start, both Hezbollah and Hamas had sworn to eliminate Israel from this earth. They were both created specifically to fight Israel!. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas is now a part of the Palestinian Authority government. Do you wonder why there is such a problem with negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority? Israel would be committing suicide if it agreed to a Palestinian state with a government that has Hamas in it!
It now appears that Iran's second successful surrogate is the Shiite Houthie rebel group that has just overtaken the Yemeni government and is in the midst of a power struggle with Al Qaeda and ISIS elements in that region. Although we were very heavily involved in supporting the old government and fighting Al Qaeda in the region, we have completely pulled out of Yemen, so it is now Iranian, for all practical purposes.
Our participation in nuclear talks with Iran has given Iran tremendous boost in prestige in the region. After all, if Iran can bring the world's most powerful nation to the negotiating table, they must be an "important" country, not some saber-rattling, rag-tag revolutionary group! To countries that are seeking "respect" and recognition, it is vitally important to have the United States recognize them as an equal and negotiate directly. That is why Kim Jong Un and North Korea is constantly acting up, insisting that the United States be the major player at all talks! Not everyone sees things the same way as we do. In some cases, what we see as failure is seen as success in some cultures!
Now, with Iran's very visible presence in Iraq fighting ISIS at our invitation, their stock has soared! To compound the situation for us, Iran is viewed as a more successful participant in the fight against ISIS than the U.S.! The Iranian "advisors" are actually participating in combat, side by side with the Iraqis, their involvement is very "visible" to the population, to the Arab press in particular. Our "advisors" are forbidden to engage in combat, so they are unseen and regarded as ineffectual. The lack of visibility of U.S. troops in combat is also seen as America's unwillingness to sacrifice American lives and instead use Iraqis in harms way. Of course that is not true, our advisors are in harms way even though they do not participate in direct combat. But, that is how it is perceived by the people in the region and the Iranians are not doing anything to dispel that view. Like I said, things are perceived different in that part of the world.
No doubt both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are feeling very nervous about the current situation. They don't want Iran to spread its influence, they don't want to be surrounded by a powerful Shiite coalition, which Iran could create. What a mess! That region has been a mess for a long, long time, and it isn't about to change any time soon. Unfortunately, it seems we have inadvertently helped make the region into even a bigger mess with the rise of Iran. Iran, it seems, will be the new power in the Middle East, unless someone stops their rise, which is unlikely to take place in this political climate.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
People Without Representation - Okinawans Part 3
Today's Japanese may not feel quite so discriminatory against Okinawans as the pre war generation, but nevertheless, discrimination still exists. The post war generation, especially those born in the last 30 years or so, tend to be more liberal in their attitudes and have been exposed to diverse cultures much more than the older generation. The younger generation no longer uses such derogatory terms as sankoku-jin (three country person, meaning Chinese, Koreans and Taiwanese) but the prejudices still persist. Anyone with a darker complexion is looked down upon by many and myths still exist that you can't trust people with darker complexion for they are somehow untrustworthy. Filipinos have always been discriminated against, considered even lower than sankoku-jin!
Despite much improved attitudes by Japanese, sadly, even today, Okinawans face discrimination. I know personally of young Okinawans who eagerly moved to Tokyo only to return after several unhappy years living among yamato people. In the late 1960s I knew the General Manager of Toyota Motors on Okinawa very well, a man in his early 50s at the time. In one of our conversations I mentioned that I had recently left the U.S. Army and he asked me how I felt about serving in the U.S. military and if I was discriminated against. I told him that although there may have been individuals who were prejudiced, the system as a whole treated me as an equal to everyone else and I did not experience any problems. He shook his head and said that he too was a beterano (veteran), that he served in the Japanese Imperial Army during World War Two. But, he added, he was treated like crap! Despite his university education, he was never promoted above the rank of private and he served in a "work battalion" that was made up of Okinawans, Koreans, and Taiwanese, in other words, sankoku-jin who became cannon fodder in many cases!
At this time there was a lot of discussions between U.S. and Japan on reversion and Okinawan papers were full of articles on the subject. He said that he did not favor reversion. He felt that the Japanese would take over and relegate Okinawans to lesser positions! He said that despite cries by many Okinawans to return to "motherland," most Okinawans had forgotten what it was like under Japanese rule. I said that perhaps the Japanese people changed after the war. He said yes, no doubt the defeat had changed Japanese people, but, he added with a smile, not enough to change their basic attitudes! He was right in many ways. As soon as reversion took place, all key positions on Okinawa were taken over by mainland Japanese. To this day, key positions in the government are held by naichi (mainland Japan) people. Of course there are Okinawans in high positions, starting with the Governor, but there are enough career government positions filled by mainland Japanese that everything is still controlled by Tokyo!
They say that if you want to learn about a culture or people, other than going and living there, the best way is to read their literature. Okinawans have produced some very good and interesting literature that is very revealing of their feelings about treatment by mainland Japanese. There are a number of literary works that deal with the this subject, but the ones that have been translated the most into English are short stories that were written anywhere between the early 20th Century into late 20th and beginning 21st Century. Many of these stories won literary prizes, so they are very well written. A short story called "Officer Okuma" was written in 1922 and it is about a young Okinawan who becomes a police officer on Okinawa. However, he has to deal with discrimination by his bosses who are all from naichi (mainland Japan) and although he tries very hard, he knows he will never be accepted by the Japanese. Another short story written in 1931, "Mr. Saito of Heaven Building" is about a successful businessman in Tokyo who carefully hides his Okinawan background and is ruined when it is discovered that he is an Okinawan and not a Japanese from Tokyo.
In the more recent, post reversion period, "Silver Motorcycle" (1977) is about an unhappy woman who is widowed by an American soldier killed in Vietnam. The story actually depicts Okinawans as being "Americanized" in some ways and being "different" from mainland Japanese. Another story, "Love Suicide at Kamaara" (1984) also depicts Okinawans as being "Americanized" and distinctly different from mainland Japanese. It was interesting to see how the authors were trying to promote a different identity for Okinawans, separating them from Japanese!
All these stories and more, show clearly that Okinawans are not happy under Japanese rule, whether it was before the war or after 1972! Of course these are views from the authors' perspectives. No doubt average Okinawan may not feel that way at all. But, it is quite apparent that there were and are Okinawans who are acutely aware that they are not Japanese and will never be accepted as such by Japanese! The distinction that Okinawans make by calling themselves uchina and the mainland Japanese yamato is not just regional pride, but born of Japanese discrimination.
Despite much improved attitudes by Japanese, sadly, even today, Okinawans face discrimination. I know personally of young Okinawans who eagerly moved to Tokyo only to return after several unhappy years living among yamato people. In the late 1960s I knew the General Manager of Toyota Motors on Okinawa very well, a man in his early 50s at the time. In one of our conversations I mentioned that I had recently left the U.S. Army and he asked me how I felt about serving in the U.S. military and if I was discriminated against. I told him that although there may have been individuals who were prejudiced, the system as a whole treated me as an equal to everyone else and I did not experience any problems. He shook his head and said that he too was a beterano (veteran), that he served in the Japanese Imperial Army during World War Two. But, he added, he was treated like crap! Despite his university education, he was never promoted above the rank of private and he served in a "work battalion" that was made up of Okinawans, Koreans, and Taiwanese, in other words, sankoku-jin who became cannon fodder in many cases!
At this time there was a lot of discussions between U.S. and Japan on reversion and Okinawan papers were full of articles on the subject. He said that he did not favor reversion. He felt that the Japanese would take over and relegate Okinawans to lesser positions! He said that despite cries by many Okinawans to return to "motherland," most Okinawans had forgotten what it was like under Japanese rule. I said that perhaps the Japanese people changed after the war. He said yes, no doubt the defeat had changed Japanese people, but, he added with a smile, not enough to change their basic attitudes! He was right in many ways. As soon as reversion took place, all key positions on Okinawa were taken over by mainland Japanese. To this day, key positions in the government are held by naichi (mainland Japan) people. Of course there are Okinawans in high positions, starting with the Governor, but there are enough career government positions filled by mainland Japanese that everything is still controlled by Tokyo!
They say that if you want to learn about a culture or people, other than going and living there, the best way is to read their literature. Okinawans have produced some very good and interesting literature that is very revealing of their feelings about treatment by mainland Japanese. There are a number of literary works that deal with the this subject, but the ones that have been translated the most into English are short stories that were written anywhere between the early 20th Century into late 20th and beginning 21st Century. Many of these stories won literary prizes, so they are very well written. A short story called "Officer Okuma" was written in 1922 and it is about a young Okinawan who becomes a police officer on Okinawa. However, he has to deal with discrimination by his bosses who are all from naichi (mainland Japan) and although he tries very hard, he knows he will never be accepted by the Japanese. Another short story written in 1931, "Mr. Saito of Heaven Building" is about a successful businessman in Tokyo who carefully hides his Okinawan background and is ruined when it is discovered that he is an Okinawan and not a Japanese from Tokyo.
In the more recent, post reversion period, "Silver Motorcycle" (1977) is about an unhappy woman who is widowed by an American soldier killed in Vietnam. The story actually depicts Okinawans as being "Americanized" in some ways and being "different" from mainland Japanese. Another story, "Love Suicide at Kamaara" (1984) also depicts Okinawans as being "Americanized" and distinctly different from mainland Japanese. It was interesting to see how the authors were trying to promote a different identity for Okinawans, separating them from Japanese!
All these stories and more, show clearly that Okinawans are not happy under Japanese rule, whether it was before the war or after 1972! Of course these are views from the authors' perspectives. No doubt average Okinawan may not feel that way at all. But, it is quite apparent that there were and are Okinawans who are acutely aware that they are not Japanese and will never be accepted as such by Japanese! The distinction that Okinawans make by calling themselves uchina and the mainland Japanese yamato is not just regional pride, but born of Japanese discrimination.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
People Without Representation - Okinawans Part 2
With the signing of the 1952 San Francisco Treaty, Japan became an independent nation once again, no longer under U.S. military occupation, but Okinawa was left in a gray area. Okinawa was essentially sacrificed by Japan for the sake of getting U.S. protection from the Soviet and Chinese threat. No Okinawan representative was present when the island chains future was discussed and decided. Instead, a Government of Ryukyu Islands (GRI) was established in 1952 with hand picked Okinawans to fill the posts. A United States Civil Administration of Ryukyus (USCAR) was set up, headed by a U.S. High Commissioner, an Army General, and staffed with US State Department officers. USCAR dictated what GRI could or could not do. So, in reality, Okinawa did not have a government, it was the U.S. that controlled everything. Okinawan people held "partial" Japanese citizenship, since under the 1952 Treaty, Japan had "residual sovereignty" over the Ryukyu Islands while the U.S. had a "trusteeship" of sorts.
Needless to say, Okinawans were not happy with this status. They were neither "fish nor fowl," neither Japanese nor U.S. subjects. At the same time, actually even before the 1952 Treaty, the Okinawan Communist Party was established around 1950. It was started by the Japanese Communist Party which continued to have a very strong influence on Okinawan "nationalist" movement. The Okinawan communists were the first ones to start pushing for reversion to Japan. The main interest of Okinawan communist party (as with Japanese communist party) was to get rid of U.S. presence.
When reversion talks started to take place in earnest in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a lot of unrest on Okinawa. Okinawa was experiencing an increase in violent crimes committed by American G.I.s, supposedly those who returned from Vietnam. Some of the violence that was attributed to the G.I.s was actually committed by others, most notably the yakuza which had started a war of its own. The Japanese gangs were trying to move in on Okinawa and violence erupted over territorial disputes. At the same time there were demonstrations, pro and con reversion. In Koza, the largest "entertainment" district for American G.I.s, many bar owners held anti reversion demonstrations and they clashed with those who demonstrated for reversion! Anti reversionists started to make their voices heard.
Genwa Nakasone, a respected politician stated that Okinawa made far more progress in several decades under American rule than several centuries under Japanese rule! Those were pretty strong words! Chotoku Ogimi, the founder of Rykyuan Nationalist Party suggested that conditions for Okinawans would be much worst under Japanese, that they would be treated as second class citizens. Ogimi even suggested that Okinawa should push to become a U.S. protectorate and possibly a territory in the future. He wanted to establish mandatory English language classes starting in kindergarten! Akira Arakawa, another noted politician went so far as to say that Japan's only interest in Okinawa was its land, which they could trade with U.S. for its military protection. Arakawa said that Okinawans would be relegated to the bottom of Japanese society! Interestingly, during this entire period when reversion talks were taking place between Japan and the U.S., there was not a single Okinawan representative involved! Japanese government had adamantly opposed any participation by Okinawans in the discussion of their future! Incredible! It seems that even before the reversion took place, Okinawans were already treated as an underclass!
Perhaps the most telling point was the comments made by Okinawa's most respected and famous politician, Junji Nishime. Nishime was one of the rare Okinawans who succeeded in Japan before reversion despite discrimination against Okinawans. He graduated from Todai (Tokyo University), a school that is almost a "must" if you want to succeed in Japanese government. He served in various high posts in Japanese government including in the Diet (Parliament) and was a Mayor of Naha and three time Governor of Okinawa (1978 - 90). He was a true Okinawan success story. Yet, he stated that despite all his achievements, he failed to assimilate Japanese identity! He said he always felt acutely his menzokushugi, Okinawan identity, nationalism!
Despite proclamation by mostly young Okinawans today that they are Japanese, Okinawans refer to themselves as uchina, while anyone from the main islands of Japan are called yamato. Although the Okinawan language (dialect) is not used as widely as before, it is still used in the villages, and the Japanese used on Okinawa is different from Japanese spoken on the main islands.
Recently, UNESCO questioned why there was no attempt by Japanese government to preserve Okinawan culture and language, which is distinctive. The Japanese government has been trying to preserve the Ainu culture and language, but no attempt has been made to do so with Okinawan culture. Okinawans themselves have tried to preserve some of their culture on their own. Apparently the Japanese government does not feel it is important.
The most recent controversy over U.S. bases has to do with the USMC Air Facility in Futenma. It is located in a very crowded area in Ginowan City and has been a bone of contention ever since it was established. The U.S. has agreed to move the facility and Japanese government chose Henoko, in north central Okinawa, just outside of the huge USMC facility, Camp Schwab. The problem is that the new facility is to be built on a piece of land that juts out into the sea, and the runway is to be built over an existing coral reef. The building of the runway will destroy much of the coral reef that is now home to the sea life in Henoko Bay. In January, when Takeshi Onaga, a new socialist Governor of Okinawa was elected, construction was halted. Onaga had run for offie on the platform that he would stop any new base construction. However, Tokyo government ordered that the construction be resumed and it started again on the 16th of this month! In short, the Tokyo government simply overruled the local government, without consultation or any discussion. As local papers said, "Tokyo runs roughshod over Okinawa!"
Okinawa may be a prefecture of Japan and Okinawans Japanese citizens, but it seems that the government in Tokyo thinks otherwise. Okinawa's representatives in Japanese government are apparently powerless to do anything, they are representatives in name only and Okinawan people really do not have any representation!
Needless to say, Okinawans were not happy with this status. They were neither "fish nor fowl," neither Japanese nor U.S. subjects. At the same time, actually even before the 1952 Treaty, the Okinawan Communist Party was established around 1950. It was started by the Japanese Communist Party which continued to have a very strong influence on Okinawan "nationalist" movement. The Okinawan communists were the first ones to start pushing for reversion to Japan. The main interest of Okinawan communist party (as with Japanese communist party) was to get rid of U.S. presence.
When reversion talks started to take place in earnest in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a lot of unrest on Okinawa. Okinawa was experiencing an increase in violent crimes committed by American G.I.s, supposedly those who returned from Vietnam. Some of the violence that was attributed to the G.I.s was actually committed by others, most notably the yakuza which had started a war of its own. The Japanese gangs were trying to move in on Okinawa and violence erupted over territorial disputes. At the same time there were demonstrations, pro and con reversion. In Koza, the largest "entertainment" district for American G.I.s, many bar owners held anti reversion demonstrations and they clashed with those who demonstrated for reversion! Anti reversionists started to make their voices heard.
Genwa Nakasone, a respected politician stated that Okinawa made far more progress in several decades under American rule than several centuries under Japanese rule! Those were pretty strong words! Chotoku Ogimi, the founder of Rykyuan Nationalist Party suggested that conditions for Okinawans would be much worst under Japanese, that they would be treated as second class citizens. Ogimi even suggested that Okinawa should push to become a U.S. protectorate and possibly a territory in the future. He wanted to establish mandatory English language classes starting in kindergarten! Akira Arakawa, another noted politician went so far as to say that Japan's only interest in Okinawa was its land, which they could trade with U.S. for its military protection. Arakawa said that Okinawans would be relegated to the bottom of Japanese society! Interestingly, during this entire period when reversion talks were taking place between Japan and the U.S., there was not a single Okinawan representative involved! Japanese government had adamantly opposed any participation by Okinawans in the discussion of their future! Incredible! It seems that even before the reversion took place, Okinawans were already treated as an underclass!
Perhaps the most telling point was the comments made by Okinawa's most respected and famous politician, Junji Nishime. Nishime was one of the rare Okinawans who succeeded in Japan before reversion despite discrimination against Okinawans. He graduated from Todai (Tokyo University), a school that is almost a "must" if you want to succeed in Japanese government. He served in various high posts in Japanese government including in the Diet (Parliament) and was a Mayor of Naha and three time Governor of Okinawa (1978 - 90). He was a true Okinawan success story. Yet, he stated that despite all his achievements, he failed to assimilate Japanese identity! He said he always felt acutely his menzokushugi, Okinawan identity, nationalism!
Despite proclamation by mostly young Okinawans today that they are Japanese, Okinawans refer to themselves as uchina, while anyone from the main islands of Japan are called yamato. Although the Okinawan language (dialect) is not used as widely as before, it is still used in the villages, and the Japanese used on Okinawa is different from Japanese spoken on the main islands.
Recently, UNESCO questioned why there was no attempt by Japanese government to preserve Okinawan culture and language, which is distinctive. The Japanese government has been trying to preserve the Ainu culture and language, but no attempt has been made to do so with Okinawan culture. Okinawans themselves have tried to preserve some of their culture on their own. Apparently the Japanese government does not feel it is important.
The most recent controversy over U.S. bases has to do with the USMC Air Facility in Futenma. It is located in a very crowded area in Ginowan City and has been a bone of contention ever since it was established. The U.S. has agreed to move the facility and Japanese government chose Henoko, in north central Okinawa, just outside of the huge USMC facility, Camp Schwab. The problem is that the new facility is to be built on a piece of land that juts out into the sea, and the runway is to be built over an existing coral reef. The building of the runway will destroy much of the coral reef that is now home to the sea life in Henoko Bay. In January, when Takeshi Onaga, a new socialist Governor of Okinawa was elected, construction was halted. Onaga had run for offie on the platform that he would stop any new base construction. However, Tokyo government ordered that the construction be resumed and it started again on the 16th of this month! In short, the Tokyo government simply overruled the local government, without consultation or any discussion. As local papers said, "Tokyo runs roughshod over Okinawa!"
Okinawa may be a prefecture of Japan and Okinawans Japanese citizens, but it seems that the government in Tokyo thinks otherwise. Okinawa's representatives in Japanese government are apparently powerless to do anything, they are representatives in name only and Okinawan people really do not have any representation!
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
People Without Representation - Okinawans
The title of this blog may seem strange, especially in view of the fact that Okinawa Prefecture with its five districts has representatives in the Japanese Diet (Parliament, House of Representatives). After all, Okinawa had been a Japanese prefecture since 1879 when it was annexed and allowed to send representatives to Tokyo government. However, even as a prefecture, Okinawa and Okinawans were always treated less than equal by the government as well as people of Japan.
Although after annexation, Okinawans were put under Japanese rule and system, they were more of a colony than a bona fide prefecture, part of Japan. Children were taught Japanese from kindergarten onward. The education system was based on what was nationwide in Japan. Yet, it was inferior to that of "mainland" Japan, and graduates of Okinawan high schools had a tough time getting into the top notch Japanese universities. Okinawans in general were treated as second class citizens. Those who chose to go to "naichi" (main islands) ended up working in the bottom strata of the Japanese work force. They were placed almost in the same category as Chinese, Taiwanese and Koreans (Taiwan and Korea had been colonized by Japan). The Japanese referred to these people as sankoku-jin (three country people, referring to China, Taiwan and Korea). They were at the bottom of the Japanese society and the Okinawans were relegated to the same level! At times, sankoku-jin meant China, Korea, and Okinawa, since many Japanese considered Taiwanese as Chinese!
During World War Two, Okinawans were drafted into the Japanese military but were not allowed to serve in regular units. They served in "work battalions," usually as simple laborers or ammunition bearers. Unlike Koreans who had a proclivity for military service, few if any Okinawans distinguished themselves in combat, mainly because they were not allowed to serve in that capacity! It was a strange way of treating people who were supposedly from a region that was a part of the country. But then again, we too weren't exactly progressive with our segregated military!
Despite the horrors of World War Two where Okinawa lost about a quarter of its civilian population, most people on Okinawa had hopes that things would be better. There was no clamor for return to Japan. Of course the Okinawans were in no position to demand anything at the end of the war. These are people who had been harshly treated by the Japanese for centuries, even after they supposedly became Japanese. So, it was not in their DNA to protest or make any demands.
The U.S. on the other hand, immediately started building bases and became the occupier of Okinawa. Initially, as a defeated nation, Japan had no say so as to what took place on Okinawa. But, after the signing of the 1952 San Francisco Treaty, when U.S. Occupation of Japan officially ended, the subject of Okinawa came to the forefront. In fact, it was one of the key issues discussed during the hammering out of the agreement for the treaty!
Japan was anxious to reduce U.S. military bases and presence in Japan to get started on the road to recovery. However, at the same time, Japan was very nervous about Soviet Union and Communist China. Korean War was still raging and Japan saw how the Chinese had been fighting UN forces to a standstill in Korea. They knew that Chinese memory was long and that WWII had only ended seven short years earlier. Japan wanted protection from the U.S. and Okinawa was a perfect place to have the U.S. military built-up! As far as Japan was concerned, it was out of sight and out of mind. After all, Okinawa was not "real" Japan! It was better to have all those bases and military personnel there than in their own backyard! Poor Okinawans had no say so what so ever!
Okinawa's status was unclear. It was in pseudo trusteeship, not officially, but for all practical purposes. As kids - teenagers, most of us who lived on Okinawa during the 1950s and 60s really had no idea of the true status of Okinawa. We lived in an insular society, on military bases and housing areas that were microcosms of typical American community, and starting in 1958, even the currency was the U.S. dollar! But life outside of U.S. bases was quite different. Unemployment was high, and a young graduate of Ryukyu University really did not have much of a future. The best paying jobs were working for the U.S. military as a clerk or other low level position, not something that a new university graduate looked forward to!
Okinawa has always been an agricultural society. The bulk of the population engaged in farming of one sort or another. The island of Okinawa is hilly, and flat areas were always considered premium land for farming. When the U.S. military started appropriating land for bases, naturally, flat areas were the ones that were taken first. Think about it. Except for housing areas that have hilly land, the bases themselves are flat, premium farm land. U.S. bases currently take up about 18% of the total land mass on Okinawa. At its peak in the 1950s and 60s, with all the housing areas included, it was more like 25% of total land mass. Since only about 50% of the land on Okinawa is flat and arable, you can figure out how much of the farm land has been taken up by U.S. bases.
In the mid 1950s the U.S. and the Japanese government discovered that about 250,000 Okinawans were displaced by U.S. bases. They had no land to farm. So a plan was hatched by both governments to encourage Okinawans to emigrate to South America. Deals were struck with South American countries to accept Okinawan immigrants, there was a lot of back door politicking and illegal funds passed. The plan was to resettle the 250,000 or so Okinawans in Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, and even Mexico. Between 1954 and 1962, approximately 17,000 Okinawans emigrated. Some were successful in establishing farming communities, like Colonia Okinawa in Bolivia. Others simply joined existing Okinawan/Japanese immigrant communities in Brazil and other countries. Many also perished in harsh conditions in Amazonian jungles and others returned after several years. Of course you can't really blame the Japanese government. Post war Japan was crowded and with few opportunities for employment. The government had to do something to relieve the situation and Okinawa was just a part of it.
By the 1960s there was some serious dialogue between the U.S. and Japan about Okinawa's reversion to Japan. Japan had recovered from the war and was becoming an economic power. Naturally, their politicians began to think of ways to increase Japan's territory and regaining Okinawa was one of them. It is ironic, because back in 1952 during the signing of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan was willing to let U.S. have trusteeship over Okinawa and eventually make it into a protectorate. This, the Japanese politicians thought, would guarantee that U.S. would always be present near by to protect Japan! How times change! Within a decade, after economic recovery, Japan was no longer thinking the same way. Now they "wanted their cake and eat it too!"
However, what really surprised many of these Japanese politicians was some of the reactions from Okinawans when reversion talks began in earnest. There were prominent Okinawan politicians who did not want the reversion to take place! Naturally, it was assumed that those who made their living off U.S. military presence, like those involved in various "entertainment" industries, would be against reversion, and indeed they were! But the objections of respected politicians and scholars really surprised the Japanese. However, most of this information was kept out of the Japanese press!
In the next blog I will discuss some of the interesting views of prominent Okinawans like Chotoku Ogimi, Akira Arakawa, and Genwa Nakasone.
Although after annexation, Okinawans were put under Japanese rule and system, they were more of a colony than a bona fide prefecture, part of Japan. Children were taught Japanese from kindergarten onward. The education system was based on what was nationwide in Japan. Yet, it was inferior to that of "mainland" Japan, and graduates of Okinawan high schools had a tough time getting into the top notch Japanese universities. Okinawans in general were treated as second class citizens. Those who chose to go to "naichi" (main islands) ended up working in the bottom strata of the Japanese work force. They were placed almost in the same category as Chinese, Taiwanese and Koreans (Taiwan and Korea had been colonized by Japan). The Japanese referred to these people as sankoku-jin (three country people, referring to China, Taiwan and Korea). They were at the bottom of the Japanese society and the Okinawans were relegated to the same level! At times, sankoku-jin meant China, Korea, and Okinawa, since many Japanese considered Taiwanese as Chinese!
During World War Two, Okinawans were drafted into the Japanese military but were not allowed to serve in regular units. They served in "work battalions," usually as simple laborers or ammunition bearers. Unlike Koreans who had a proclivity for military service, few if any Okinawans distinguished themselves in combat, mainly because they were not allowed to serve in that capacity! It was a strange way of treating people who were supposedly from a region that was a part of the country. But then again, we too weren't exactly progressive with our segregated military!
Despite the horrors of World War Two where Okinawa lost about a quarter of its civilian population, most people on Okinawa had hopes that things would be better. There was no clamor for return to Japan. Of course the Okinawans were in no position to demand anything at the end of the war. These are people who had been harshly treated by the Japanese for centuries, even after they supposedly became Japanese. So, it was not in their DNA to protest or make any demands.
The U.S. on the other hand, immediately started building bases and became the occupier of Okinawa. Initially, as a defeated nation, Japan had no say so as to what took place on Okinawa. But, after the signing of the 1952 San Francisco Treaty, when U.S. Occupation of Japan officially ended, the subject of Okinawa came to the forefront. In fact, it was one of the key issues discussed during the hammering out of the agreement for the treaty!
Japan was anxious to reduce U.S. military bases and presence in Japan to get started on the road to recovery. However, at the same time, Japan was very nervous about Soviet Union and Communist China. Korean War was still raging and Japan saw how the Chinese had been fighting UN forces to a standstill in Korea. They knew that Chinese memory was long and that WWII had only ended seven short years earlier. Japan wanted protection from the U.S. and Okinawa was a perfect place to have the U.S. military built-up! As far as Japan was concerned, it was out of sight and out of mind. After all, Okinawa was not "real" Japan! It was better to have all those bases and military personnel there than in their own backyard! Poor Okinawans had no say so what so ever!
Okinawa's status was unclear. It was in pseudo trusteeship, not officially, but for all practical purposes. As kids - teenagers, most of us who lived on Okinawa during the 1950s and 60s really had no idea of the true status of Okinawa. We lived in an insular society, on military bases and housing areas that were microcosms of typical American community, and starting in 1958, even the currency was the U.S. dollar! But life outside of U.S. bases was quite different. Unemployment was high, and a young graduate of Ryukyu University really did not have much of a future. The best paying jobs were working for the U.S. military as a clerk or other low level position, not something that a new university graduate looked forward to!
Okinawa has always been an agricultural society. The bulk of the population engaged in farming of one sort or another. The island of Okinawa is hilly, and flat areas were always considered premium land for farming. When the U.S. military started appropriating land for bases, naturally, flat areas were the ones that were taken first. Think about it. Except for housing areas that have hilly land, the bases themselves are flat, premium farm land. U.S. bases currently take up about 18% of the total land mass on Okinawa. At its peak in the 1950s and 60s, with all the housing areas included, it was more like 25% of total land mass. Since only about 50% of the land on Okinawa is flat and arable, you can figure out how much of the farm land has been taken up by U.S. bases.
In the mid 1950s the U.S. and the Japanese government discovered that about 250,000 Okinawans were displaced by U.S. bases. They had no land to farm. So a plan was hatched by both governments to encourage Okinawans to emigrate to South America. Deals were struck with South American countries to accept Okinawan immigrants, there was a lot of back door politicking and illegal funds passed. The plan was to resettle the 250,000 or so Okinawans in Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, and even Mexico. Between 1954 and 1962, approximately 17,000 Okinawans emigrated. Some were successful in establishing farming communities, like Colonia Okinawa in Bolivia. Others simply joined existing Okinawan/Japanese immigrant communities in Brazil and other countries. Many also perished in harsh conditions in Amazonian jungles and others returned after several years. Of course you can't really blame the Japanese government. Post war Japan was crowded and with few opportunities for employment. The government had to do something to relieve the situation and Okinawa was just a part of it.
By the 1960s there was some serious dialogue between the U.S. and Japan about Okinawa's reversion to Japan. Japan had recovered from the war and was becoming an economic power. Naturally, their politicians began to think of ways to increase Japan's territory and regaining Okinawa was one of them. It is ironic, because back in 1952 during the signing of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan was willing to let U.S. have trusteeship over Okinawa and eventually make it into a protectorate. This, the Japanese politicians thought, would guarantee that U.S. would always be present near by to protect Japan! How times change! Within a decade, after economic recovery, Japan was no longer thinking the same way. Now they "wanted their cake and eat it too!"
However, what really surprised many of these Japanese politicians was some of the reactions from Okinawans when reversion talks began in earnest. There were prominent Okinawan politicians who did not want the reversion to take place! Naturally, it was assumed that those who made their living off U.S. military presence, like those involved in various "entertainment" industries, would be against reversion, and indeed they were! But the objections of respected politicians and scholars really surprised the Japanese. However, most of this information was kept out of the Japanese press!
In the next blog I will discuss some of the interesting views of prominent Okinawans like Chotoku Ogimi, Akira Arakawa, and Genwa Nakasone.
Monday, March 16, 2015
"Plain Jane"
In Snap Shots there are 27 stories about various interesting people that I encountered during my globe-trotting days, both before and after Foreign Service. However, those 27 stories are far from all of the pieces that I have written and published through the years. One story that I published about 10 years ago in a hunting magazine had an interesting twist and deserves to be retold. The story was titled "Plain Jane" and it was about a somewhat mysterious (at least to me, and at that time!) woman that I met while duck hunting in northern California.
In the mid 1970's, when I was working at Chico State and we lived in the town of Gridley, I used to frequent the Gray Lodge Wildlife Management Area (5 minutes from my house!) to hunt ducks. Gray Lodge is a huge federally managed wildlife area that is open to waterfowl hunting during the season for a fee. It is a well known area for duck hunting in California and very popular with California as well as out of state duck hunters.
Many duck hunters came from afar (not everyone lived 5 minutes away like me!) and would camp out in the parking lot. There were quite a few out of state hunters as well as those from big cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Some would even go so far as to pitch tents, but most simply drove up and slept in their campers. Jane was one of those "campers" from LA area and drove up in her Toyota Chinook camper, one of those neat little jobs that I used to dream of owning. What made her unusual was that she was alone, accompanied only by her two dogs. Back in those days, it was highly unusual to see a woman hunting by herself, let alone camping! But Jane drove up from southern California a couple of times during the season and camped and shot ducks over the weekend with her two dogs.
What first caught my attention were her two dogs. They were unusual. Most hunters had their Labs or Goldens, some had their Chesapeaks or spaniels. In other words, they were common duck retrieving dogs. But Jane had a pair of Wire-haired Griffons. The Wire-haired Griffons look a lot like the German wire-haired pointer (Drathaar), except that they tend to be shorter and stockier with a lot longer hair. I had only seen Griffons in photographs before, but when I saw Jane walking the two dogs around the parking lot, I immediately recognized them. So I approached her and struck up a conversation. I introduced myself and she responded by simply saying, "I am Jane." She seemed surprised and pleased that I recognized the breed of her dogs. She commented that most people thought they were German wire-hairs.
Jane looked to be in her mid fifties or so. Actually, I couldn't tell, for all I knew she could have been in her mid forties! She was a very attractive, striking woman, despite her baggy men's clothing that she wore for duck hunting. She wore no jewelry or make-up, but had a men's old Omega Sea-Master wristwatch. As we chatted, she told me that she came up from LA area a couple of times a season to hunt ducks. She said there was no place quite like Gray Lodge in southern California.
When she noticed how I was drooling over her Toyota Camper, she opened the rear door and invited me to look inside. It was a luxurious interior, compared to my bare-bones camper shell on my Ford pick-up. I knew how much these Toyota Campers cost and I certainly couldn't afford one on my salary from Chico State. I would have been tempted to rob a bank to get one, if I thought I could get away with it!
Jane's shotgun was inside and I noted that it was an unusual gun. It was unusual in a sense that it was a model that was not very common. Also, duck guns tend to be hefty and rugged pieces, since they are normally treated somewhat roughly and have to fire stout loads. Jane's gun on the contrary was a light piece, usually used for upland shooting of smaller birds like quail. She saw the surprise on my face when I saw the gun. She smiled and said that she didn't need a cannon, that she hunted for pleasure and not to punish herself with a heavy gun and heavy recoil! That made sense, but I didn't say anything.
I saw Jane a few more times after that. She was always alone, and most male hunters who appeared to know her were very polite but kept their distance and she did not befriend them. One of the old timers, a regular at Gray Lodge told me that she had been coming to Gray Lodge for over 20 years, that she used to come with her husband, but she was now a widow. That was all that I knew about her.
Much later, and quite by accident, I found a shotgun in a southern California gun shop that reminded me of Jane's gun of long ago. When I asked the gun shop owner where he had gotten the gun, to my surprise he said he bought it from a woman that he knew for many years, a widow of a Hollywood big shot! I asked what her name was, and he surprised me even more when he said that it was Jane!
I learned more about Jane from the gun shop owner. It turned out that Jane came to Hollywood, from somewhere in the Midwest, to try her luck at the movies when she was young. It must have been in the 1940s. She had gotten a few bit parts, but before her acting career could develop, she met and married a wealthy Hollywood movie studio executive. Her husband was an avid hunter and the two, who were childless, went about hunting all over the state as well as foreign countries. Then sometime in the 1950s, her husband was killed in a plane crash and Jane became a widow.
Jane continued to live in the house that they owned in Beverly Hills, and became somewhat of a recluse, except for her hunting trips. Her avid interest in hunting and for hunting dogs which she had shared with her late husband became her sole passion in life. Apparently she died sometime in the mid 1990s. According to the gun shop owner, he knew her for quite sometime. Jane brought several shotguns and sold them to him when she decided that she wasn't going to hunt anymore. She told the gun shop owner that she had no heirs, so she had no one to pass on the shotguns and other belongings, so she was either giving them away or selling them. As he put it, "she was a real lady!"
I only knew her as Jane, plain Jane. I learned of her last name from that gun shop owner some 25 years after I had met her. The last name just didn't seem to go together for me, having known her for all those years without it, so to me she will always be "Plain Jane."
In the mid 1970's, when I was working at Chico State and we lived in the town of Gridley, I used to frequent the Gray Lodge Wildlife Management Area (5 minutes from my house!) to hunt ducks. Gray Lodge is a huge federally managed wildlife area that is open to waterfowl hunting during the season for a fee. It is a well known area for duck hunting in California and very popular with California as well as out of state duck hunters.
Many duck hunters came from afar (not everyone lived 5 minutes away like me!) and would camp out in the parking lot. There were quite a few out of state hunters as well as those from big cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Some would even go so far as to pitch tents, but most simply drove up and slept in their campers. Jane was one of those "campers" from LA area and drove up in her Toyota Chinook camper, one of those neat little jobs that I used to dream of owning. What made her unusual was that she was alone, accompanied only by her two dogs. Back in those days, it was highly unusual to see a woman hunting by herself, let alone camping! But Jane drove up from southern California a couple of times during the season and camped and shot ducks over the weekend with her two dogs.
What first caught my attention were her two dogs. They were unusual. Most hunters had their Labs or Goldens, some had their Chesapeaks or spaniels. In other words, they were common duck retrieving dogs. But Jane had a pair of Wire-haired Griffons. The Wire-haired Griffons look a lot like the German wire-haired pointer (Drathaar), except that they tend to be shorter and stockier with a lot longer hair. I had only seen Griffons in photographs before, but when I saw Jane walking the two dogs around the parking lot, I immediately recognized them. So I approached her and struck up a conversation. I introduced myself and she responded by simply saying, "I am Jane." She seemed surprised and pleased that I recognized the breed of her dogs. She commented that most people thought they were German wire-hairs.
Jane looked to be in her mid fifties or so. Actually, I couldn't tell, for all I knew she could have been in her mid forties! She was a very attractive, striking woman, despite her baggy men's clothing that she wore for duck hunting. She wore no jewelry or make-up, but had a men's old Omega Sea-Master wristwatch. As we chatted, she told me that she came up from LA area a couple of times a season to hunt ducks. She said there was no place quite like Gray Lodge in southern California.
When she noticed how I was drooling over her Toyota Camper, she opened the rear door and invited me to look inside. It was a luxurious interior, compared to my bare-bones camper shell on my Ford pick-up. I knew how much these Toyota Campers cost and I certainly couldn't afford one on my salary from Chico State. I would have been tempted to rob a bank to get one, if I thought I could get away with it!
Jane's shotgun was inside and I noted that it was an unusual gun. It was unusual in a sense that it was a model that was not very common. Also, duck guns tend to be hefty and rugged pieces, since they are normally treated somewhat roughly and have to fire stout loads. Jane's gun on the contrary was a light piece, usually used for upland shooting of smaller birds like quail. She saw the surprise on my face when I saw the gun. She smiled and said that she didn't need a cannon, that she hunted for pleasure and not to punish herself with a heavy gun and heavy recoil! That made sense, but I didn't say anything.
I saw Jane a few more times after that. She was always alone, and most male hunters who appeared to know her were very polite but kept their distance and she did not befriend them. One of the old timers, a regular at Gray Lodge told me that she had been coming to Gray Lodge for over 20 years, that she used to come with her husband, but she was now a widow. That was all that I knew about her.
Much later, and quite by accident, I found a shotgun in a southern California gun shop that reminded me of Jane's gun of long ago. When I asked the gun shop owner where he had gotten the gun, to my surprise he said he bought it from a woman that he knew for many years, a widow of a Hollywood big shot! I asked what her name was, and he surprised me even more when he said that it was Jane!
I learned more about Jane from the gun shop owner. It turned out that Jane came to Hollywood, from somewhere in the Midwest, to try her luck at the movies when she was young. It must have been in the 1940s. She had gotten a few bit parts, but before her acting career could develop, she met and married a wealthy Hollywood movie studio executive. Her husband was an avid hunter and the two, who were childless, went about hunting all over the state as well as foreign countries. Then sometime in the 1950s, her husband was killed in a plane crash and Jane became a widow.
Jane continued to live in the house that they owned in Beverly Hills, and became somewhat of a recluse, except for her hunting trips. Her avid interest in hunting and for hunting dogs which she had shared with her late husband became her sole passion in life. Apparently she died sometime in the mid 1990s. According to the gun shop owner, he knew her for quite sometime. Jane brought several shotguns and sold them to him when she decided that she wasn't going to hunt anymore. She told the gun shop owner that she had no heirs, so she had no one to pass on the shotguns and other belongings, so she was either giving them away or selling them. As he put it, "she was a real lady!"
I only knew her as Jane, plain Jane. I learned of her last name from that gun shop owner some 25 years after I had met her. The last name just didn't seem to go together for me, having known her for all those years without it, so to me she will always be "Plain Jane."
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Toby and the "Midnight Readers"
In Snap Shots there is a story called "Toby and the 'Midnight Readers'." It is the 7th Chapter in the book. In the "Preface" of the book, I explain that the all stories in the book are factual or based on real people and real incidents. As such, Toby was a real person that I knew who made a good living writing "midnight readers." However, in the story I changed the circumstances somewhat and the location. Although the real Toby did live in California, he was closer to the Bay Area, actually in Sonoma County.
The real Toby (that was his real name) was indeed a college professor just like the one in the story. However, unlike the character in the story who worked part-time at a junior college, the real Toby was employed by a four year university full time and enjoyed a reputation for being an authority in his field of specialty, which was the 18th Century English Literature.
When I first met Toby, I had no idea that he was a popular author of soft porn novels. It wasn't until I visited his house, a very nice house in Sebastopol, California, and saw all those soft porn books in his office/library that I learned of his sideline vocation. Just like in the story, when I asked him, he admitted to being the author of these "midnight readers" as he called them. Naturally I was quite surprised. Here, a middle aged, very respectable English professor with a sterling reputation as a scholar, was in fact a writer of soft porn novels! What made this revelation all the more amazing was the fact that Toby (the real one) was gay! Yet, his "midnight readers" were all about the sexual encounters of heterosexual couples, not gay sex! Toby published these soft porn books under an assumed, exotic sounding woman's name.
Toby's house was gorgeous, located on about an acre in a wooded area. I am sure today it would cost several millions of dollars. Even back in those days, some 45 years ago, it cost a fortune! It was not the kind of a house that an average professor of a state university would be able to afford. Perhaps the president of the university or one of the administrative types, but not a typical teaching faculty member. So it was quite apparent that his income from his "sideline" was very lucrative!
Toby entertained often and lavishly, he could afford it! He would invite other faculty members from the English Department as well as other departments. In those days, most faculty members would simply hold a wine and cheese gathering, often a BYOB affair. But not Toby, he provided all the wine and booze and food that was catered! He was a popular guy. California being always very liberal even back then, no one seemed to pay any heed to the fact that he was gay. He was a very charming, witty individual who was very popular with fellow faculty members and students alike.
But then, sadly, he began to change. He started to flaunt his homosexuality, at times making things very uncomfortable for heterosexuals. Pretty soon most faculty members stopped going to his parties. Toby not only became more outwardly gay, but he would invite gay students to the parties and some of them would get very obnoxious at those gatherings. Rumors started to circulate that he was carrying on with several gay students and held wild parties at his house. Pretty soon his bizarre behavior reached a point that no heterosexual person attended any of his parties or socialized with him at all. Other faculty members began to even shun him at school, avoiding any sort of contact. In fact, there were a couple other gay members of the faculty who also avoided him! It was hard to figure what caused this change in his behavior.
Then, over the summer of that year, a completely unexpected and shocking incident took place. One morning, according to some of the first hand witnesses (a couple of gay young men who were staying at his house), Toby calmly sat down in the middle of the lawn of his large back yard and poured gasoline over himself and set himself on fire. The witnesses said that Toby would daily go out into the lawn and sit and meditate for at least an hour, so they didn't pay any attention when he did go out. No one noticed that he took a can of gasoline with him. A shocking and horrible death. No one could have predicted this, despite his strange behavior of the past months. Thus, came an end to the series of popular soft porn books that were supposedly written by a woman with an exotic sounding name.
About twenty years ago the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office announced that they had reopened Toby's case that was previously closed as a suicide. The case was reopened as a homicide and two men were arrested for possible involvement. After intense interrogation and investigation, the two gay men admitted to having murdered Toby. They admitted to having plotted to rob Toby, believing that he had valuables hidden in the house. They had apparently tortured him, but couldn't get him to tell them where the valuables were located. So, one of them, in a fit of rage poured gasoline over Toby and threatened to set him on fire. When Toby still wouldn't tell them, they set him on fire!
Because the body had burned completely, there was no autopsy. However, one of the detectives thought he saw traces of burned rope or string, but couldn't be sure. It bothered him all these years and whenever he had an opportunity, he would look into the case again. More than 20 years had passed and the detective was looking into retirement within few years. Then one day the Sheriff's Office got a complaint call about a gay couple that was arguing loudly, disturbing the neighbors. When the deputies arrived on the scene, the woman who had called in the complaint said that the two gay men who lived next door had been arguing and each accusing the other of having set someone on fire. The two men were arrested and brought in for booking. When the detective heard about what they had accused each other, he immediately checked their names and discovered that they were the two young gay men at Toby's house the morning he died. It didn't take long from that point to get to the truth and a confession from both.
So, despite his bizarre behavior, Toby did not kill himself by setting himself on fire. Instead, he was tortured and murdered by two men that he so recklessly took-in during one of his wild binges. Strange how fate sometimes works. What are the chances of the two murderers staying in the same area after all these years! Even more remote, what are the chances of the two staying together all these years! But they did stay in the same area and they did stay together and ultimately got caught. It may have taken more than 20 years, but in the end, they did get caught for their crime!
The real Toby (that was his real name) was indeed a college professor just like the one in the story. However, unlike the character in the story who worked part-time at a junior college, the real Toby was employed by a four year university full time and enjoyed a reputation for being an authority in his field of specialty, which was the 18th Century English Literature.
When I first met Toby, I had no idea that he was a popular author of soft porn novels. It wasn't until I visited his house, a very nice house in Sebastopol, California, and saw all those soft porn books in his office/library that I learned of his sideline vocation. Just like in the story, when I asked him, he admitted to being the author of these "midnight readers" as he called them. Naturally I was quite surprised. Here, a middle aged, very respectable English professor with a sterling reputation as a scholar, was in fact a writer of soft porn novels! What made this revelation all the more amazing was the fact that Toby (the real one) was gay! Yet, his "midnight readers" were all about the sexual encounters of heterosexual couples, not gay sex! Toby published these soft porn books under an assumed, exotic sounding woman's name.
Toby's house was gorgeous, located on about an acre in a wooded area. I am sure today it would cost several millions of dollars. Even back in those days, some 45 years ago, it cost a fortune! It was not the kind of a house that an average professor of a state university would be able to afford. Perhaps the president of the university or one of the administrative types, but not a typical teaching faculty member. So it was quite apparent that his income from his "sideline" was very lucrative!
Toby entertained often and lavishly, he could afford it! He would invite other faculty members from the English Department as well as other departments. In those days, most faculty members would simply hold a wine and cheese gathering, often a BYOB affair. But not Toby, he provided all the wine and booze and food that was catered! He was a popular guy. California being always very liberal even back then, no one seemed to pay any heed to the fact that he was gay. He was a very charming, witty individual who was very popular with fellow faculty members and students alike.
But then, sadly, he began to change. He started to flaunt his homosexuality, at times making things very uncomfortable for heterosexuals. Pretty soon most faculty members stopped going to his parties. Toby not only became more outwardly gay, but he would invite gay students to the parties and some of them would get very obnoxious at those gatherings. Rumors started to circulate that he was carrying on with several gay students and held wild parties at his house. Pretty soon his bizarre behavior reached a point that no heterosexual person attended any of his parties or socialized with him at all. Other faculty members began to even shun him at school, avoiding any sort of contact. In fact, there were a couple other gay members of the faculty who also avoided him! It was hard to figure what caused this change in his behavior.
Then, over the summer of that year, a completely unexpected and shocking incident took place. One morning, according to some of the first hand witnesses (a couple of gay young men who were staying at his house), Toby calmly sat down in the middle of the lawn of his large back yard and poured gasoline over himself and set himself on fire. The witnesses said that Toby would daily go out into the lawn and sit and meditate for at least an hour, so they didn't pay any attention when he did go out. No one noticed that he took a can of gasoline with him. A shocking and horrible death. No one could have predicted this, despite his strange behavior of the past months. Thus, came an end to the series of popular soft porn books that were supposedly written by a woman with an exotic sounding name.
About twenty years ago the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office announced that they had reopened Toby's case that was previously closed as a suicide. The case was reopened as a homicide and two men were arrested for possible involvement. After intense interrogation and investigation, the two gay men admitted to having murdered Toby. They admitted to having plotted to rob Toby, believing that he had valuables hidden in the house. They had apparently tortured him, but couldn't get him to tell them where the valuables were located. So, one of them, in a fit of rage poured gasoline over Toby and threatened to set him on fire. When Toby still wouldn't tell them, they set him on fire!
Because the body had burned completely, there was no autopsy. However, one of the detectives thought he saw traces of burned rope or string, but couldn't be sure. It bothered him all these years and whenever he had an opportunity, he would look into the case again. More than 20 years had passed and the detective was looking into retirement within few years. Then one day the Sheriff's Office got a complaint call about a gay couple that was arguing loudly, disturbing the neighbors. When the deputies arrived on the scene, the woman who had called in the complaint said that the two gay men who lived next door had been arguing and each accusing the other of having set someone on fire. The two men were arrested and brought in for booking. When the detective heard about what they had accused each other, he immediately checked their names and discovered that they were the two young gay men at Toby's house the morning he died. It didn't take long from that point to get to the truth and a confession from both.
So, despite his bizarre behavior, Toby did not kill himself by setting himself on fire. Instead, he was tortured and murdered by two men that he so recklessly took-in during one of his wild binges. Strange how fate sometimes works. What are the chances of the two murderers staying in the same area after all these years! Even more remote, what are the chances of the two staying together all these years! But they did stay in the same area and they did stay together and ultimately got caught. It may have taken more than 20 years, but in the end, they did get caught for their crime!
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Iran, The New Power in Iraq?
Yesterday I watched and listened to the commentary made by two media political analysts, one a former CIA Counter Terrorist Expert, another a retired Army Colonel. They were discussing the pros and cons of Iran's participation in the war against ISIS, a participation that apparently we welcomed. They both agreed that Iran's involvement was not a good thing politically, that our prestige in the region has suffered tremendously, while Iran has gained ground. The retired Army Colonel also added that we have no business in the region and that we should just get out! Was he suggesting that we take on an isolationist policy? I am not sure what he meant by that, but we just cannot stay out of world affairs, we are the super power, the leader in the world. At least that is how we are perceived by the rest of the world, true or not! If we decide that we don't care what happens to the rest of the world, we could probably cut ourselves off from everyone....under a lot of criticism! Are we willing to do that? I was rather surprised by that comment from the so-called "expert" media political analyst!
Our Joint Chief, General Dempsey, made a statement to the effect that "anything Iran can do to help defeat ISIS is a good thing." Both the Secretary of State and Defense echoed Dempsey's sentiments. Where do we get these clowns? Do any of them have any brain cells that are still alive? With such leadership in two of our key government branches and the JCS, no wonder we are having problems! It seems that for the last couple of decades we have had nothing but a bunch of "yes men" among the generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The generals and admirals are supposed to provide their expertise to our civilian leaders, not just be "yes men," and nod their heads eagerly in agreement whenever civilian leaders suggest some plan!
Generally speaking, you do not advance to the rank of general/admiral if you do not practice politics. Unfortunately, that is our system in the military. Up to 0-6 level you can get by being just a good soldier. But beyond that point, you have to be either very lucky or be very aware of politics of your organization! There were some in the past, like General Norman Schwartzkopf, "Stormin' Norman" of Gulf War fame. Schwartzkopf made it all the way to four stars, but he was never the Army Chief or got that brass ring, the Joint Chief, the most coveted position in the military. "Stormin' Norman" had a tendency to shoot from the hip, so to speak, and it often got him into hot water. During Gulf War, on several occasions he said some things that did not agree with what Pentagon or his boss, General Colin Powell was saying. It was obvious that Schwartzkopf was not going anywhere after the war. Another example was General Eric Shinseki who was the Army Chief of Staff and was in line for the Joint Chief job. However, he butted heads with the Secretary of Defense and the Assistant Secretary over the strategy for Gulf War. He was retired!
So now we have Dempsey and company who will say anything, often stupid things, as long as it doesn't rock the official boat! The public is not aware of generals that have been fired over policy disagreements. We hear quite often about those that got involved in scandals, usually some form of indiscretion that involved poor lack of judgment. But there were several that were fired because of their disagreement with the conduct of war either in Afghanistan or Iraq!
Now, it seems Iran has taken over for us in Iraq. It also appears that Iran will be successful in leading the Iraqi militia (some say that they are mostly Iranians!) in retaking Tikrit. If and when they do, it will be a tremendous boost in prestige for Iran in the region and the entire Muslim world! It seems we didn't think about that or didn't care when we gave Iran the green light to go into Iraq and help the militia to fight ISIS. Dempsey's words that "anything Iran can do to defeat ISIS is a good thing" indicates to me that he is not concerned with the after effects, namely Iran's rise in power in the region. Is it because we think we can control Iran? What makes us think that we can control Iran if we haven't been able to do so for the last 35 years?
What is more disturbing is that we have been trying to avoid a sectarian war, Sunni against Shiite, in the region. By allowing Iran and the Iraqi Shiites take over, we have alienated the Sunnis in the region. On top of that, we might be creating an ethnic war! Saddam Hussein's war against Iran was an ethnic war, not a religious war, as was his attempt to annihilate the Kurds. Neither Iranians nor the Kurds are Arabs! Saddam was a Shiite but he was not a religious man and kept both the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq under a tight reign. He was not concerned so much with religious aspects of his society, and although he did favor the Shiites, it was just his rule against everyone else! Now, despite what Maliki and others say, it is basically Shiite majority vs. the Sunni. Ironically, the only ones that are capable of fighting ISIS are the Kurds, who are mostly Sunni. The Peshmergas are Sunni and non-Arab! Now the Iranians, also non-Arabs, are in the mix! To me, this smells of not just a sectarian war, but a soon to be ethnic war!
Our Joint Chief, General Dempsey, made a statement to the effect that "anything Iran can do to help defeat ISIS is a good thing." Both the Secretary of State and Defense echoed Dempsey's sentiments. Where do we get these clowns? Do any of them have any brain cells that are still alive? With such leadership in two of our key government branches and the JCS, no wonder we are having problems! It seems that for the last couple of decades we have had nothing but a bunch of "yes men" among the generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The generals and admirals are supposed to provide their expertise to our civilian leaders, not just be "yes men," and nod their heads eagerly in agreement whenever civilian leaders suggest some plan!
Generally speaking, you do not advance to the rank of general/admiral if you do not practice politics. Unfortunately, that is our system in the military. Up to 0-6 level you can get by being just a good soldier. But beyond that point, you have to be either very lucky or be very aware of politics of your organization! There were some in the past, like General Norman Schwartzkopf, "Stormin' Norman" of Gulf War fame. Schwartzkopf made it all the way to four stars, but he was never the Army Chief or got that brass ring, the Joint Chief, the most coveted position in the military. "Stormin' Norman" had a tendency to shoot from the hip, so to speak, and it often got him into hot water. During Gulf War, on several occasions he said some things that did not agree with what Pentagon or his boss, General Colin Powell was saying. It was obvious that Schwartzkopf was not going anywhere after the war. Another example was General Eric Shinseki who was the Army Chief of Staff and was in line for the Joint Chief job. However, he butted heads with the Secretary of Defense and the Assistant Secretary over the strategy for Gulf War. He was retired!
So now we have Dempsey and company who will say anything, often stupid things, as long as it doesn't rock the official boat! The public is not aware of generals that have been fired over policy disagreements. We hear quite often about those that got involved in scandals, usually some form of indiscretion that involved poor lack of judgment. But there were several that were fired because of their disagreement with the conduct of war either in Afghanistan or Iraq!
Now, it seems Iran has taken over for us in Iraq. It also appears that Iran will be successful in leading the Iraqi militia (some say that they are mostly Iranians!) in retaking Tikrit. If and when they do, it will be a tremendous boost in prestige for Iran in the region and the entire Muslim world! It seems we didn't think about that or didn't care when we gave Iran the green light to go into Iraq and help the militia to fight ISIS. Dempsey's words that "anything Iran can do to defeat ISIS is a good thing" indicates to me that he is not concerned with the after effects, namely Iran's rise in power in the region. Is it because we think we can control Iran? What makes us think that we can control Iran if we haven't been able to do so for the last 35 years?
What is more disturbing is that we have been trying to avoid a sectarian war, Sunni against Shiite, in the region. By allowing Iran and the Iraqi Shiites take over, we have alienated the Sunnis in the region. On top of that, we might be creating an ethnic war! Saddam Hussein's war against Iran was an ethnic war, not a religious war, as was his attempt to annihilate the Kurds. Neither Iranians nor the Kurds are Arabs! Saddam was a Shiite but he was not a religious man and kept both the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq under a tight reign. He was not concerned so much with religious aspects of his society, and although he did favor the Shiites, it was just his rule against everyone else! Now, despite what Maliki and others say, it is basically Shiite majority vs. the Sunni. Ironically, the only ones that are capable of fighting ISIS are the Kurds, who are mostly Sunni. The Peshmergas are Sunni and non-Arab! Now the Iranians, also non-Arabs, are in the mix! To me, this smells of not just a sectarian war, but a soon to be ethnic war!
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Putin
The biggest threat to the United States and to its western allies is not ISIS and Al Qaeda, or a half a dozen other Islamic Extremists groups. They are indeed a threat, but they can be eliminated if properly handled, something that the West and the U.S. has yet to do! The biggest threat isn't that crazy Kim Jong Un and North Korea, although North Korea is extremely dangerous, nor is it Iran with its developing nuclear capability. The biggest threat has always been right there staring us in the face, never went away for almost a century - it used to be the Soviet Union, now it is the Russian Federation, or more correctly, Vladimir Putin. The Soviet Union may be gone, but Russia is very much still present and its current leader, Vladimir Putin, is Joseph Stalin reincarnate!
Putin is not quite as crude as Stalin, although I wouldn't call him exactly smooth either! Putin is just a modernized version of that mass murderer/dictator, Stalin. I think the West has been lulled to think that Russia is no longer a threat, especially with all the economic problems that it has been having since the demise of the Soviet Union. But what we and the rest of the West have failed to note is that Putin has revived the Russian military by completely restructuring, modernizing the system. He has openly announced during his first term as president of Russia (2000-2004) that he would rebuild the Russian military and bring Russia back to its glory. He may not have said it openly, but it was obvious what he meant that Russia would dominate the West! Of course he claimed that it was just a metaphor, that Russia would dominate economically. But it was nothing but a thinly veiled threat/promise to bring the Russian military to the days of Soviet Union vs. the West!
Vladimir Putin was born in 1952 and even as a child was fascinated with the various TV and movie characters that fought the Nazis and the West in spy thrillers! The Soviets may not have had access to James Bond movies or our TV spy shows of the 1960s, but they did have their own versions on the big screen and the TV. Putin, since childhood, wanted to become a Soviet intelligence officer like the heroes in the movies and TV shows that he admired. He attended the Leningrad State University and upon graduation entered the service of KGB, their CIA! It was his dream job! Apparently he was a very talented and hard working KGB officer for he rose steadily in rank and by 1991 before the Soviet Union dissolved, he had reached the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. The KGB, unlike the CIA, has a military rank structure.
It was then, when the Soviet Union fell apart, that the young Vladimir Putin made a comment to the press that "the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century was the demise of the Soviet Union." Putin by then had left KGB after 16 years and had entered local politics, that is why he was interviewed, when he was running for one of the local offices. His run at local politics was successful and four years later in 1995 he went to Moscow and entered national politics by joining Boris Yeltsin's government. It wasn't long before he seemed to have appeared out of nowhere into national prominence! In 1999 Boris Yeltsin suddenly resigned and Vladimir Putin became the Acting President of Russia. He must have liked his new position for in 2000 when elections were held he ran for the presidency. The election was very controversial and there were all sorts of accusations of fraud, but Vladimir Putin won the election!
Beginning with his first term, he immediately launched into rebuilding the Russian military. He also brought back the old Soviet anthem as the new Russian national anthem. That should have been a clear warning to every one! The lyrics were changed a bit here and there, but it was the same old communist anthem! Apparently we didn't pay much attention to what was going on, what he was doing. We did recognize the fact that he was rebuilding Russia and was trying to revive some nationalistic spirit among the people. Many Russians complained, but no one listened. He seemed to be somewhat heavy handed with his opposition, but that we thought was simply Russia's lack of experience as a "free country" that caused such behavior. Amid more cries of foul, election fraud, etc., Putin was reelected for a second term in 2004. When he finished his second term and the Russian constitution did not allow him to run for a third consecutive term, he hand picked his successor, Dimitry Medvedev, and instead took on the job of Prime Minister for a four year term and became the "shadow" president. Everyone knew that he ran the show.
In 2011, just before Medvedev's term expired, Putin had the constitution changed to allow for a six year term for presidency, beginning with the 2012, of course, not before. So now, having "fairly" won the election by a landslide, he is in his third year of a six year term. No doubt he will run again in 2018 and win, which means he will be in the office until 2024! At that point he may decide he had enough, he will be 74 then!
Vladimir Putin is reputed to be the richest man in the world. He made a fortune off the Sochi Olympics and he gets a cut out of everything, the oil and gas revenue, weapons sales, whatever else. In a sense he is actually worse than Stalin. His actions can be just as crude and poorly disguised, like the take over of Crimea and the current crises in Ukraine. He doesn't care, as long as he gets his way. Political Correctness is not one of his concerns, in fact PC does not exist in his world! He has a deep distain for the West and hatred for the United States! After all, as a young man, he spent 16 years with KGB that targeted the West and the United States in particular. US was the enemy, and in his mind, it still is!
His heavy handed style may seem crude to us, but it works for him. In the latest episode, he had his chief rival knocked off KGB style, then announced to the public that he would get the guilty party. Miraculously, within a short period five Chechens were captured and accused of being involved in the Nemtsov killing. A sixth one blew himself up rather than getting captured. Supposedly the Chechens killed Nemtsov in retaliation for some comments that he made about the killing of cartoonists in Paris. That is a ridiculous! What is more than likely is that the Chechens were indeed hired for the hit, then double crossed and arrested and are used as patsies! The current head of Chechnya is a good buddy of Putin's and more than willing to supply him with hit men if he needs any! Chechnya, by the way, is known as the "wild west" full of freelance hit men.
Putin despises the West and hates the United States, it is easy enough to see in his facial expressions whenever he is meeting with counterparts from the West or the United States. Like the old communist that he is, he believes that the West is corrupt, weak, and without backbone! He periodically tests the West by pushing and sees that the response is always to give ground! To Putin that is a sign of weakness. He does not yet feel that the Russian military is ready to take on the West, but it is getting there! He has reorganized it, streamlined and modernized it. There are now 100 well armed modern rapid deployment type mechanized and airborne brigades in the Russian army. No more of those huge cumbersome divisions of millions that the Soviet Union had. The Russian army is now made up of half a million well trained volunteers, no more conscripts!
While Putin is modernizing and increasing his army, we are going to reduce ours below the levels of post World War Two, to about a 200,000 man army. There is something not quite right in this! Either there is a disconnect, or Pentagon knows something that it is not telling us.
Putin is not quite as crude as Stalin, although I wouldn't call him exactly smooth either! Putin is just a modernized version of that mass murderer/dictator, Stalin. I think the West has been lulled to think that Russia is no longer a threat, especially with all the economic problems that it has been having since the demise of the Soviet Union. But what we and the rest of the West have failed to note is that Putin has revived the Russian military by completely restructuring, modernizing the system. He has openly announced during his first term as president of Russia (2000-2004) that he would rebuild the Russian military and bring Russia back to its glory. He may not have said it openly, but it was obvious what he meant that Russia would dominate the West! Of course he claimed that it was just a metaphor, that Russia would dominate economically. But it was nothing but a thinly veiled threat/promise to bring the Russian military to the days of Soviet Union vs. the West!
Vladimir Putin was born in 1952 and even as a child was fascinated with the various TV and movie characters that fought the Nazis and the West in spy thrillers! The Soviets may not have had access to James Bond movies or our TV spy shows of the 1960s, but they did have their own versions on the big screen and the TV. Putin, since childhood, wanted to become a Soviet intelligence officer like the heroes in the movies and TV shows that he admired. He attended the Leningrad State University and upon graduation entered the service of KGB, their CIA! It was his dream job! Apparently he was a very talented and hard working KGB officer for he rose steadily in rank and by 1991 before the Soviet Union dissolved, he had reached the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. The KGB, unlike the CIA, has a military rank structure.
It was then, when the Soviet Union fell apart, that the young Vladimir Putin made a comment to the press that "the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century was the demise of the Soviet Union." Putin by then had left KGB after 16 years and had entered local politics, that is why he was interviewed, when he was running for one of the local offices. His run at local politics was successful and four years later in 1995 he went to Moscow and entered national politics by joining Boris Yeltsin's government. It wasn't long before he seemed to have appeared out of nowhere into national prominence! In 1999 Boris Yeltsin suddenly resigned and Vladimir Putin became the Acting President of Russia. He must have liked his new position for in 2000 when elections were held he ran for the presidency. The election was very controversial and there were all sorts of accusations of fraud, but Vladimir Putin won the election!
Beginning with his first term, he immediately launched into rebuilding the Russian military. He also brought back the old Soviet anthem as the new Russian national anthem. That should have been a clear warning to every one! The lyrics were changed a bit here and there, but it was the same old communist anthem! Apparently we didn't pay much attention to what was going on, what he was doing. We did recognize the fact that he was rebuilding Russia and was trying to revive some nationalistic spirit among the people. Many Russians complained, but no one listened. He seemed to be somewhat heavy handed with his opposition, but that we thought was simply Russia's lack of experience as a "free country" that caused such behavior. Amid more cries of foul, election fraud, etc., Putin was reelected for a second term in 2004. When he finished his second term and the Russian constitution did not allow him to run for a third consecutive term, he hand picked his successor, Dimitry Medvedev, and instead took on the job of Prime Minister for a four year term and became the "shadow" president. Everyone knew that he ran the show.
In 2011, just before Medvedev's term expired, Putin had the constitution changed to allow for a six year term for presidency, beginning with the 2012, of course, not before. So now, having "fairly" won the election by a landslide, he is in his third year of a six year term. No doubt he will run again in 2018 and win, which means he will be in the office until 2024! At that point he may decide he had enough, he will be 74 then!
Vladimir Putin is reputed to be the richest man in the world. He made a fortune off the Sochi Olympics and he gets a cut out of everything, the oil and gas revenue, weapons sales, whatever else. In a sense he is actually worse than Stalin. His actions can be just as crude and poorly disguised, like the take over of Crimea and the current crises in Ukraine. He doesn't care, as long as he gets his way. Political Correctness is not one of his concerns, in fact PC does not exist in his world! He has a deep distain for the West and hatred for the United States! After all, as a young man, he spent 16 years with KGB that targeted the West and the United States in particular. US was the enemy, and in his mind, it still is!
His heavy handed style may seem crude to us, but it works for him. In the latest episode, he had his chief rival knocked off KGB style, then announced to the public that he would get the guilty party. Miraculously, within a short period five Chechens were captured and accused of being involved in the Nemtsov killing. A sixth one blew himself up rather than getting captured. Supposedly the Chechens killed Nemtsov in retaliation for some comments that he made about the killing of cartoonists in Paris. That is a ridiculous! What is more than likely is that the Chechens were indeed hired for the hit, then double crossed and arrested and are used as patsies! The current head of Chechnya is a good buddy of Putin's and more than willing to supply him with hit men if he needs any! Chechnya, by the way, is known as the "wild west" full of freelance hit men.
Putin despises the West and hates the United States, it is easy enough to see in his facial expressions whenever he is meeting with counterparts from the West or the United States. Like the old communist that he is, he believes that the West is corrupt, weak, and without backbone! He periodically tests the West by pushing and sees that the response is always to give ground! To Putin that is a sign of weakness. He does not yet feel that the Russian military is ready to take on the West, but it is getting there! He has reorganized it, streamlined and modernized it. There are now 100 well armed modern rapid deployment type mechanized and airborne brigades in the Russian army. No more of those huge cumbersome divisions of millions that the Soviet Union had. The Russian army is now made up of half a million well trained volunteers, no more conscripts!
While Putin is modernizing and increasing his army, we are going to reduce ours below the levels of post World War Two, to about a 200,000 man army. There is something not quite right in this! Either there is a disconnect, or Pentagon knows something that it is not telling us.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Iran, Our New Ally In The Middle East?
It seems that Iran has become our new ally in the Middle East in our fight against ISIS. Perhaps I shouldn't say our fight against ISIS, since we are doing precious little in that department! It is more like Iran has become our surrogate in Iraq! Obviously part of our effort to make a sweetheart deal with Iran on the nuclear issue was to get them to do our fighting in Iraq. The sad part is, Iran would have done that without our encouragement. All we needed to do was step back, which we did, and Iran would have moved in on its own. More than likely, Maliki, the Iraqi leader would have invited Iran since he is closely tied with that country! But as usual, our international poker playing ability is such that we let everyone know what our hand looked like, so it was easy for anyone to pull a bluff or out maneuver us. So now, Iran is deeply involved in Iraq!
The latest "offensive" launched by the Iraqi forces to recapture Tikrit without our or any coalition air support, without our guidance, so to speak, is a clear indication that Iraq has shifted its dependence on Iran. It is interesting how the media keeps mentioning Iraqi forces and the Peshmerga, but makes no mention of Iranian involvement. The media is so determined to portray Washington as favorably as possible, that they conveniently leave out some facts. You can't blame the media, it was the media that put the people in Washington in charge, they are, or were media darlings. That is until things start going south, in which case the media will turn on them in a flash and rip them apart! Right now things are not bad enough for the media to do an about face. At least in their minds, there is still some hope.
Most recently, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister announced that Iraq has been handed over to Iran by us. He made that statement after he met with John Kerry. It must have been awkward for Kerry to stand next to the Saudi Foreign Minister as he announced that Iran was taking over Iraq! The Saudis, incidentally, are one of the strong opponents of our so-called "deal" that Kerry is trying to work out with Iran. It should tell us something when not only Israel, but Saudi Arabia, technically Israel's enemy, is also against any kind of a deal. Israel knows Arabs better than any other non-Arabic country. Saudi Arabia is an Arab country, and although Iranians are not Arabs, they are nevertheless from the same region, same religion, and basically same mindset! But apparently Washington feels that we know Iran better than either Israel or Saudi Arabia! Talk about arrogance! I haven't seen such arrogance from Washington since the days of Jimmy Carter's "Georgia Mafia!" Those "boys" thought they had an answer to everything and wouldn't listen to anybody!
One of the things that we are trying to avoid in that region is a sectarian war, a war of Sunni Muslims against the Shia/Shiite Muslims. ISIS is made up of Sunnis, but the majority of Iraqi population is Shia/Shiite while the Kurds are mostly Sunni, and yes, the Iranians predominantly Shiite but are Sunni as well. Saddam Hussein kept the Shiites under an iron fist and attempted to commit genocide against the Kurds. The hatreds between the two sects run deep. Obviously Iraq needs the Kurds and the Peshmergas to fight the ISIS, the Peshmerga are the only fighting force worth anything in that region. But then you add a foreign component, Iran. The Iranians are not only disliked by the majority of Iraqis, but they are also not Arabs! It was not all that long ago that Iraq was involved in a long bloody war against Iran from 1980 until 1988! Keep in mind that they are different people and there is no love lost between the two people! Iraqis speak Arabic while the Iranians speak Farsi (Persian). Although both countries are Islamic, their cultures are very different! So, the presence of Iranians in Iraq is not going to sit well with many Iraqis, regardless of how Maliki feels about Iranians! It is a very complex situation and the relationship between the two have historically been very complicated. But now, what we have done is allowed an emerging nuclear power, Iran, essentially enter Iraq to assume the role of a "supervising" power. I would really like to know who is responsible for our policies in that region....if we have any policies!
It isn't too late yet. Iran hasn't established foothold in Iraq yet. All it has done is made some initial "incursions" by sending troops, etc. We can stop it all, starting with the silly "deal" that we are trying to work out with Iran. We can fully commit ourselves in Iraq and Syria and wipe out ISIS. Yes, we can do that, we have the means and the capability. Unless we wipe them out when we can, even if we are criticized by our European allies for our overly aggressive tactics, we are facing a long, long war against ISIS that we will only be fighting in a reactive way. Every time ISIS commits an act of terror against us, we will strike. But it won't be to finish them, it will be just to "punish" them for their atrocity. Of course, it is even questionable whether we will take such retaliatory strikes, since we haven't done anything in response to the Americans that ISIS has murdered so far. Oh, I know, we conducted air strikes. But did we actually get any responsible ISIS members, like "Jihadi John." I don't know about that. I am sure we will try to get "Jihadi John" and eventually one of our Special Operations units like the SEALs or the DELTA will get him.
Now, all of those ISIS-like groups seem to have united. The latest, Boko Haram of Nigeria pledged its allegiance to ISIS via social network. So now it isn't just ISIS but a whole bunch of others. ISIS is currently attracting all of the media attention. This is making those other groups very jealous of ISIS! They want and crave attention, so you know they will be doing something soon! How are we going to handle them? Are we going to try and find surrogates to do our work? I hope not!
The latest "offensive" launched by the Iraqi forces to recapture Tikrit without our or any coalition air support, without our guidance, so to speak, is a clear indication that Iraq has shifted its dependence on Iran. It is interesting how the media keeps mentioning Iraqi forces and the Peshmerga, but makes no mention of Iranian involvement. The media is so determined to portray Washington as favorably as possible, that they conveniently leave out some facts. You can't blame the media, it was the media that put the people in Washington in charge, they are, or were media darlings. That is until things start going south, in which case the media will turn on them in a flash and rip them apart! Right now things are not bad enough for the media to do an about face. At least in their minds, there is still some hope.
Most recently, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister announced that Iraq has been handed over to Iran by us. He made that statement after he met with John Kerry. It must have been awkward for Kerry to stand next to the Saudi Foreign Minister as he announced that Iran was taking over Iraq! The Saudis, incidentally, are one of the strong opponents of our so-called "deal" that Kerry is trying to work out with Iran. It should tell us something when not only Israel, but Saudi Arabia, technically Israel's enemy, is also against any kind of a deal. Israel knows Arabs better than any other non-Arabic country. Saudi Arabia is an Arab country, and although Iranians are not Arabs, they are nevertheless from the same region, same religion, and basically same mindset! But apparently Washington feels that we know Iran better than either Israel or Saudi Arabia! Talk about arrogance! I haven't seen such arrogance from Washington since the days of Jimmy Carter's "Georgia Mafia!" Those "boys" thought they had an answer to everything and wouldn't listen to anybody!
One of the things that we are trying to avoid in that region is a sectarian war, a war of Sunni Muslims against the Shia/Shiite Muslims. ISIS is made up of Sunnis, but the majority of Iraqi population is Shia/Shiite while the Kurds are mostly Sunni, and yes, the Iranians predominantly Shiite but are Sunni as well. Saddam Hussein kept the Shiites under an iron fist and attempted to commit genocide against the Kurds. The hatreds between the two sects run deep. Obviously Iraq needs the Kurds and the Peshmergas to fight the ISIS, the Peshmerga are the only fighting force worth anything in that region. But then you add a foreign component, Iran. The Iranians are not only disliked by the majority of Iraqis, but they are also not Arabs! It was not all that long ago that Iraq was involved in a long bloody war against Iran from 1980 until 1988! Keep in mind that they are different people and there is no love lost between the two people! Iraqis speak Arabic while the Iranians speak Farsi (Persian). Although both countries are Islamic, their cultures are very different! So, the presence of Iranians in Iraq is not going to sit well with many Iraqis, regardless of how Maliki feels about Iranians! It is a very complex situation and the relationship between the two have historically been very complicated. But now, what we have done is allowed an emerging nuclear power, Iran, essentially enter Iraq to assume the role of a "supervising" power. I would really like to know who is responsible for our policies in that region....if we have any policies!
It isn't too late yet. Iran hasn't established foothold in Iraq yet. All it has done is made some initial "incursions" by sending troops, etc. We can stop it all, starting with the silly "deal" that we are trying to work out with Iran. We can fully commit ourselves in Iraq and Syria and wipe out ISIS. Yes, we can do that, we have the means and the capability. Unless we wipe them out when we can, even if we are criticized by our European allies for our overly aggressive tactics, we are facing a long, long war against ISIS that we will only be fighting in a reactive way. Every time ISIS commits an act of terror against us, we will strike. But it won't be to finish them, it will be just to "punish" them for their atrocity. Of course, it is even questionable whether we will take such retaliatory strikes, since we haven't done anything in response to the Americans that ISIS has murdered so far. Oh, I know, we conducted air strikes. But did we actually get any responsible ISIS members, like "Jihadi John." I don't know about that. I am sure we will try to get "Jihadi John" and eventually one of our Special Operations units like the SEALs or the DELTA will get him.
Now, all of those ISIS-like groups seem to have united. The latest, Boko Haram of Nigeria pledged its allegiance to ISIS via social network. So now it isn't just ISIS but a whole bunch of others. ISIS is currently attracting all of the media attention. This is making those other groups very jealous of ISIS! They want and crave attention, so you know they will be doing something soon! How are we going to handle them? Are we going to try and find surrogates to do our work? I hope not!
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Same Place, Same Battle - Different Perspective
In the fall of 1992 I was at Harvard's Center for International Affairs (CFIA) as a fellow for the academic year. In October of that year a seminar was held at CFIA that was somewhat unusual. Normally, seminars were conducted by one guest speaker, but in this case, there were four. Also, the subject matter, rather than being some academic topic, dealt with a battle that took place in 1965 in a place called Ia Drang Valley in the former Republic of South Vietnam. The location and the battle was better known to the military as the LZ X-Ray or Landing Zone X-Ray. The seminar was led by Harold Moore, a retired Army Lieutenant General, and Joseph Galloway, a reporter. The two Americans were co-authors of a newly published book called We Were Soldiers Once.....And Young. Accompanying the two Americans were two Vietnamese from the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington. Both Vietnamese were from their military attaché's office. The one who was a colonel was the army attaché while the other was a major, his assistant.
The seminar was arranged by one of my colleagues, a US Army Colonel Casey Brown, who was a fellow at CFIA like me. Casey was a young 2nd Lieutenant, a platoon leader in Vietnam and he was at LZ-Xray with Moore and Galloway. However, he refrained from participating in the seminar, since he was a "host." Casey, who retired as a Major General about 10 years ago, told me that at the time, he was too scared and confused to figure out who won that battle!
What made the foursome of invited guests so unusual is that they had faced each other in battle as adversaries at LZ-Xray so long ago. Harold or Hal Moore was a Lieutenant Colonel commanding the 1st Battalion of the 7th Calvary that was involved in that battle, reinforced by elements of 2nd Battalion. Joseph Galloway was a reporter who was covering the battle. Galloway was the only civilian out of Vietnam War to receive a Bronze Star for Valor in combat! Hal Moore had awarded him that honor after their experience at LZ-Xray. The Vietnamese Colonel was a Captain, a company commander at the time, and the Major was a Lieutenant and an intelligence officer. Both Vietnamese, like the two Americans, fought in that fierce two day battle and survived it. However, their views and interpretations of the battle were completely different. Talk about a different perspective!
The famous 7th Cavalry (Custer's old unit!) was part of the 1st Cavalry Division that had just been reorganized, trained, and deployed to Vietnam as the 1st Air Cavalry Division. The army was experimenting with the air assault or air mobile concept for a number of years. In 1963 the army revived the old 11th Airborne Division which had been inactive since 1957 and renamed it 11th Air Assault. The 11th Air Assault was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia and trained in the new air assault concept. The idea was similar to World War Two glider troops, except that gliders were replaced with helicopters. The unit trained for two years, but just before deployment to Vietnam in 1965, it was re-flagged, as the army puts it, to 1st Cavalry Division and renamed 1st Air Cavalry. The idea was to be able to move troops rapidly and insert them into battle zone (LZs) making for a much safer and faster insertion than a parachute drop. The LZ does not require as much space as a DZ (Drop Zone) for parachute troops. However, there were still a lot of bugs to be worked out! The only helicopter that was available at the time for such use was the good old Huey! Great bird, but not big enough to carry a lot troops, barely enough for a squad in each chopper!
The 1st Air Cavalry arrived in Vietnam and was itching to try out their new tactics. Word reached through intelligence (faulty intelligence!) that a PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam) both NVA and VC were entrenched in the hillside just below an area that was identified as LZ X-Ray. The LZ was small and could only accommodate about three choppers at a time. The intelligence was faulty because there was a reinforced regiment of NVA set up in bunkers and tunnels in the hills just above the LZ. The 1st Air Cavalry decided to test its new assault system and dispatched about 400 men of the 1st Battalion of the 7th under the command of Lt. Col. Hal Moore. It was actually members of the 1st Battalion later to be reinforced by some from the 2nd Battalion. The assault went off as planned and the first few choppers landed with troops with no major incident. However, before Moore could even have a complete company on the ground, the troops made contact with the enemy and a fire fight broke out. Although eventually all of about 400 or so troops made it to LZ X-Ray, by that time the battle was raging and in full force.
The commander of the North Vietnamese troops was Lt. Col Nguyen Huu An, who later became a Lieutenant General just like Hal Moore. Nguyen learned from his intelligence of the impending arrival of the American troops and he knew that a new battle tactic was going to be tried - air assault. Nguyen determined that one way to lessen the effect of the air assault was to close-in, make it difficult for Americans to land troops. Also, he believed that the biggest advantage that Americans had was air support, bombing. To neutralize that advantage as much as possible he employed a tactic of closing-in so close that if Americans used bombs, they would risk killing their own men. So, both sides were using new tactics for the first time, and both commanders, Moore and Nguyen, knew that it was crucial for their tactics to succeed. Americans were determined to start using the air assault or air mobile system and the NVA had to learn to combat the new technique.
The battle was bloody and furious. Those who have seen the movie got the full force of Hollywood's version of blood and gore of the battle, while the readers of the book could just imagine through the descriptive words just how chaotic and horrifying the whole scene was during the and after the battle. Naturally, each side claimed victory. Americans could claim a higher body count, while the Vietnamese could point to the fact that they ended up with the real estate, even after all that bombing. What was interesting about the seminar was that it was obvious that both Moore and Galloway felt that their side won the battle, and that is how they wrote the book. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, quietly and without backing down, insisted that they had won because after all, the object of the battle was not the body count but who ended up with the real estate!
What struck me the most after listening to the four of them arguing and discussing their views was how stupid it was for both sides to lose all those lives and suffer such carnage for a battle that had no effect on the final out come of the war! In fact, it had no effect on how the war proceeded from that point on! The army brass was determined to use the air assault method, which is now standard not just for army but the Marines as well. Hal Moore's experience and his men's sacrifice really didn't help improve air assault technique. It was obvious from the start that it was a bad idea to land troops in a small LZ when you were heavily outnumbered by the enemy! So, nothing was really gained from that! The Vietnamese proved, at a heavy price, that closing in on the enemy did prevent the enemy from successfully using air support. Many of the 1st Battalion troops were killed and wounded by our own bombing. They also proved that closing in on the LZ, making it too hot for landing could help prevent enemy reinforcements. But, all of those are common sense tactics and did not have to be learned at the cost of heavy loss of life!
At the end of the seminar it was obvious that you would not be able to convince Moore and Galloway that their view was wrong. The same thing could be said about the Vietnamese. They were polite and never raised their voices, but it was obvious that they were in total disagreement with the Americans. One thing was crystal clear. Both sides thought war was a terrible thing and the price paid by those who died was really not worth the final outcome. An interesting and different perspective from two opposing sides on the same battle at the same place.
The seminar was arranged by one of my colleagues, a US Army Colonel Casey Brown, who was a fellow at CFIA like me. Casey was a young 2nd Lieutenant, a platoon leader in Vietnam and he was at LZ-Xray with Moore and Galloway. However, he refrained from participating in the seminar, since he was a "host." Casey, who retired as a Major General about 10 years ago, told me that at the time, he was too scared and confused to figure out who won that battle!
What made the foursome of invited guests so unusual is that they had faced each other in battle as adversaries at LZ-Xray so long ago. Harold or Hal Moore was a Lieutenant Colonel commanding the 1st Battalion of the 7th Calvary that was involved in that battle, reinforced by elements of 2nd Battalion. Joseph Galloway was a reporter who was covering the battle. Galloway was the only civilian out of Vietnam War to receive a Bronze Star for Valor in combat! Hal Moore had awarded him that honor after their experience at LZ-Xray. The Vietnamese Colonel was a Captain, a company commander at the time, and the Major was a Lieutenant and an intelligence officer. Both Vietnamese, like the two Americans, fought in that fierce two day battle and survived it. However, their views and interpretations of the battle were completely different. Talk about a different perspective!
The famous 7th Cavalry (Custer's old unit!) was part of the 1st Cavalry Division that had just been reorganized, trained, and deployed to Vietnam as the 1st Air Cavalry Division. The army was experimenting with the air assault or air mobile concept for a number of years. In 1963 the army revived the old 11th Airborne Division which had been inactive since 1957 and renamed it 11th Air Assault. The 11th Air Assault was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia and trained in the new air assault concept. The idea was similar to World War Two glider troops, except that gliders were replaced with helicopters. The unit trained for two years, but just before deployment to Vietnam in 1965, it was re-flagged, as the army puts it, to 1st Cavalry Division and renamed 1st Air Cavalry. The idea was to be able to move troops rapidly and insert them into battle zone (LZs) making for a much safer and faster insertion than a parachute drop. The LZ does not require as much space as a DZ (Drop Zone) for parachute troops. However, there were still a lot of bugs to be worked out! The only helicopter that was available at the time for such use was the good old Huey! Great bird, but not big enough to carry a lot troops, barely enough for a squad in each chopper!
The 1st Air Cavalry arrived in Vietnam and was itching to try out their new tactics. Word reached through intelligence (faulty intelligence!) that a PAVN (People's Army of Vietnam) both NVA and VC were entrenched in the hillside just below an area that was identified as LZ X-Ray. The LZ was small and could only accommodate about three choppers at a time. The intelligence was faulty because there was a reinforced regiment of NVA set up in bunkers and tunnels in the hills just above the LZ. The 1st Air Cavalry decided to test its new assault system and dispatched about 400 men of the 1st Battalion of the 7th under the command of Lt. Col. Hal Moore. It was actually members of the 1st Battalion later to be reinforced by some from the 2nd Battalion. The assault went off as planned and the first few choppers landed with troops with no major incident. However, before Moore could even have a complete company on the ground, the troops made contact with the enemy and a fire fight broke out. Although eventually all of about 400 or so troops made it to LZ X-Ray, by that time the battle was raging and in full force.
The commander of the North Vietnamese troops was Lt. Col Nguyen Huu An, who later became a Lieutenant General just like Hal Moore. Nguyen learned from his intelligence of the impending arrival of the American troops and he knew that a new battle tactic was going to be tried - air assault. Nguyen determined that one way to lessen the effect of the air assault was to close-in, make it difficult for Americans to land troops. Also, he believed that the biggest advantage that Americans had was air support, bombing. To neutralize that advantage as much as possible he employed a tactic of closing-in so close that if Americans used bombs, they would risk killing their own men. So, both sides were using new tactics for the first time, and both commanders, Moore and Nguyen, knew that it was crucial for their tactics to succeed. Americans were determined to start using the air assault or air mobile system and the NVA had to learn to combat the new technique.
The battle was bloody and furious. Those who have seen the movie got the full force of Hollywood's version of blood and gore of the battle, while the readers of the book could just imagine through the descriptive words just how chaotic and horrifying the whole scene was during the and after the battle. Naturally, each side claimed victory. Americans could claim a higher body count, while the Vietnamese could point to the fact that they ended up with the real estate, even after all that bombing. What was interesting about the seminar was that it was obvious that both Moore and Galloway felt that their side won the battle, and that is how they wrote the book. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, quietly and without backing down, insisted that they had won because after all, the object of the battle was not the body count but who ended up with the real estate!
What struck me the most after listening to the four of them arguing and discussing their views was how stupid it was for both sides to lose all those lives and suffer such carnage for a battle that had no effect on the final out come of the war! In fact, it had no effect on how the war proceeded from that point on! The army brass was determined to use the air assault method, which is now standard not just for army but the Marines as well. Hal Moore's experience and his men's sacrifice really didn't help improve air assault technique. It was obvious from the start that it was a bad idea to land troops in a small LZ when you were heavily outnumbered by the enemy! So, nothing was really gained from that! The Vietnamese proved, at a heavy price, that closing in on the enemy did prevent the enemy from successfully using air support. Many of the 1st Battalion troops were killed and wounded by our own bombing. They also proved that closing in on the LZ, making it too hot for landing could help prevent enemy reinforcements. But, all of those are common sense tactics and did not have to be learned at the cost of heavy loss of life!
At the end of the seminar it was obvious that you would not be able to convince Moore and Galloway that their view was wrong. The same thing could be said about the Vietnamese. They were polite and never raised their voices, but it was obvious that they were in total disagreement with the Americans. One thing was crystal clear. Both sides thought war was a terrible thing and the price paid by those who died was really not worth the final outcome. An interesting and different perspective from two opposing sides on the same battle at the same place.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
America's War with Islamic Terrorists
Yes, I know, I am supposed to refer to them as "extremists," nothing more. But I am sorry, I call what I see, and what I see are Islamic Terrorists. I will concede that they are extremists, but nevertheless, they are extremists who are Islamic Terrorists.
America's involvement or war against Islamic Terrorists goes back many years, perhaps not as far back as European countries that fought in the Crusades and later against the Ottoman Empire, but nevertheless, we do have a history which began shortly after our country was founded. It all began when our merchant ships were being captured and robbed by Barbary Coast pirates off North Africa. These were pirates of various stripes, even some European free-lancers, but mostly of Islamic origin. Those that were state sponsored were all of Islamic origin, pirates from Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis - all of the countries and city states of North Africa along the Mediterranean coast.
On and off, most European countries waged war against these pirate states, but ultimately settled things by paying tribute! In other words, the European countries were black mailed by these countries. So, Europeans have had a history of caving-in to the demands of terrorists!
But Europeans were not alone, we too were paying tribute! It may sound unpalatable, but we paid the pirates to leave our ships alone. The biggest offender at the time was Algiers but we had struck a deal with the dey of Algiers and paid him tribute annually. But then we started having problems with the pasha of Tripoli who wanted to be paid like his counterpart in Algiers. In 1802 the pasha of Tripoli seized one of our merchant ships and held it for ransom, so we went to war against him. High sea piracy appears to be in the blood of some of the Islamic states, like IEDs or suicide bombing! Today we have the Somali pirates, a bit south of where all that piracy used to take place, but still on the same continent and still conducted by Islamic Terrorists!
We had a total of two "Barbary Wars" at the end of which we stopped paying tribute to any of those pirate state countries. All of this took place before the War of 1812! Francis Scott Keys, who wrote the lyrics to our National Anthem during the War of 1812 also penned some words about our "Barbary Wars" glorifying our victory. His lyrics, vastly modified, were incorporated later into the Marine Corps Hymn......."to the shores of Tripoli".....a bit out of sequence, since the lyrics begin with
"From the Halls of Montezuma"......referring to the Mexican war that took place in 1846, decades later! But never mind, it is a great hymn with great lyrics! Who said music lyrics had to be chronologically accurate!
That was the start of our wars with Islamic Terrorists. Although there was some relative quiet, no action, for some time, the whole thing erupted in the 20th Century and has continued into the 21st. We've had five Ambassadors and numerous other diplomats that were killed by the Islamic Terrorists just in the past half a century. Most members of the American public probably didn't pay all that much attention to these deaths, since there were a lot of other things going on at the same time. After all, something like the 9/11 or the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon certainly would overshadow an incident involving a U.S. diplomat who was killed in some far off land with an unpronounceable name. Again, the death of someone with a title of an Ambassador would gain more attention than somebody who is merely identified as a U.S. diplomat, or sometimes just as a U.S. employee of the Embassy or Consulate General! People tend to pay much more attention to something that involves someone that appears to be "important." But to the Foreign Service family, for those who chose to work abroad to represent our country, every death of a Foreign Service member is a very close and personal thing. The U.S. Foreign Service, despite periodic expansions, is a very small organization compared to other government agencies. At any given time, there are about 6,000 Foreign Service Officers with the State Department. Of course there are others who hold specialist positions such as Diplomatic Security, Communications, etc. But the FSOs, as the Foreign Service Officers are called, number in total only about 6,000.
I have known a number people during my Foreign Service career who were killed by terrorists. Some I knew casually, others I knew quite well. In 1983, a US Navy captain from JUSMAG (Joint United States Military Advisory Group) in Athens, George Tsantos, was gunned down by a Greek terrorist. This was not a killing by an Islamic Terrorist, but still it was a terror attack. I used to play poker with George as well as a group of others when I was in Athens, so I knew him well! But perhaps the death that hit home closest was the death of a young woman who was one of the casualties of the Nairobi bombing in 1998.
Michelle Denny was a young woman that both my wife Jo and I knew very well. In fact she was like a kid sister to Jo. Michelle was an Administrative Officer at the Consulate General in Guayaquil, Ecuador when we were there 1988-92. She got married in Ecuador to her long time boy friend who came out to Guayaquil and the wedding took place in our house. She left Ecuador and was assigned to Montevideo, Uruguay. When she finished her tour of duty in Montevideo, she contacted me and asked me to help her get a posting to Nairobi. This is a very common practice in the Foreign Service and many jobs are secured in this fashion. "Corridor Reputation" is extremely important, so having someone vouch for you is a good way to get a job.
At the time I knew the DCM (Deputy Chief of the Mission) in Nairobi quite well, so I called him and told him about Michelle. I told him what a great officer she was and how bright she was. My friend thanked me for the input and said that he would choose her for the job of General Services Officer at the embassy. So, Michelle got the job in Nairobi. When I heard in 1998 that she was killed in the bombing, it numbed me at first. I confess to even having a sense of guilt for having helped her get to Nairobi! Michelle died in that Al Qaeda bombing, leaving behind a husband and two daughters.
In September of 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, along with three other Americans, was killed by Al Qaeda sponsored attack on the Consulate. I knew Chris Stevens from Cairo, back in 1995-96. At the time, Chris was a second tour officer, having been in the Foreign Service about four years or so. He was a tall, good looking young man with an unruly mop of sandy hair, stereotypical image of a California surfer! In fact, Chris was from California and he was a surfer! Many a female employee in my section had a crush on him! Chris worked for me for about nine months before he left post for bigger and better things. He was bright, friendly, hard working, and spoke very good Arabic. He was everything you would want in a Foreign Service Officer. I left Cairo in 1997 for Tijuana, Mexico, but kept tabs on Chris. He moved up rapidly through the ranks and I was not surprised to hear that he was appointed ambassador to Libya in 2011.
Just as in the case of Michelle Denny earlier, it was a shock to hear of Chris's death announced on TV news......the same way I first heard about Michelle's death! They were two people that I knew very well, and their lives were cut short, cruelly and violently by Islamic Terrorists. They were killed not by "extremists" as suggested by Washington, but by Al Qaeda, the Islamic Terrorists.
John Quincy Adams was reluctant to go to war against the Barbary Pirates, the Islamic Terrorist of that period. He said that if we went to war against them (Islamic Terrorists), we would be fighting them for a long, long time! How prophetic! Adams wasn't keen on paying the pirates, but he didn't want to go to war either. It was problematic, a difficult choice, which was fortunately left up to Jefferson to make, and he chose to go to war.
America's involvement or war against Islamic Terrorists goes back many years, perhaps not as far back as European countries that fought in the Crusades and later against the Ottoman Empire, but nevertheless, we do have a history which began shortly after our country was founded. It all began when our merchant ships were being captured and robbed by Barbary Coast pirates off North Africa. These were pirates of various stripes, even some European free-lancers, but mostly of Islamic origin. Those that were state sponsored were all of Islamic origin, pirates from Morocco, Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis - all of the countries and city states of North Africa along the Mediterranean coast.
On and off, most European countries waged war against these pirate states, but ultimately settled things by paying tribute! In other words, the European countries were black mailed by these countries. So, Europeans have had a history of caving-in to the demands of terrorists!
But Europeans were not alone, we too were paying tribute! It may sound unpalatable, but we paid the pirates to leave our ships alone. The biggest offender at the time was Algiers but we had struck a deal with the dey of Algiers and paid him tribute annually. But then we started having problems with the pasha of Tripoli who wanted to be paid like his counterpart in Algiers. In 1802 the pasha of Tripoli seized one of our merchant ships and held it for ransom, so we went to war against him. High sea piracy appears to be in the blood of some of the Islamic states, like IEDs or suicide bombing! Today we have the Somali pirates, a bit south of where all that piracy used to take place, but still on the same continent and still conducted by Islamic Terrorists!
We had a total of two "Barbary Wars" at the end of which we stopped paying tribute to any of those pirate state countries. All of this took place before the War of 1812! Francis Scott Keys, who wrote the lyrics to our National Anthem during the War of 1812 also penned some words about our "Barbary Wars" glorifying our victory. His lyrics, vastly modified, were incorporated later into the Marine Corps Hymn......."to the shores of Tripoli".....a bit out of sequence, since the lyrics begin with
"From the Halls of Montezuma"......referring to the Mexican war that took place in 1846, decades later! But never mind, it is a great hymn with great lyrics! Who said music lyrics had to be chronologically accurate!
That was the start of our wars with Islamic Terrorists. Although there was some relative quiet, no action, for some time, the whole thing erupted in the 20th Century and has continued into the 21st. We've had five Ambassadors and numerous other diplomats that were killed by the Islamic Terrorists just in the past half a century. Most members of the American public probably didn't pay all that much attention to these deaths, since there were a lot of other things going on at the same time. After all, something like the 9/11 or the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon certainly would overshadow an incident involving a U.S. diplomat who was killed in some far off land with an unpronounceable name. Again, the death of someone with a title of an Ambassador would gain more attention than somebody who is merely identified as a U.S. diplomat, or sometimes just as a U.S. employee of the Embassy or Consulate General! People tend to pay much more attention to something that involves someone that appears to be "important." But to the Foreign Service family, for those who chose to work abroad to represent our country, every death of a Foreign Service member is a very close and personal thing. The U.S. Foreign Service, despite periodic expansions, is a very small organization compared to other government agencies. At any given time, there are about 6,000 Foreign Service Officers with the State Department. Of course there are others who hold specialist positions such as Diplomatic Security, Communications, etc. But the FSOs, as the Foreign Service Officers are called, number in total only about 6,000.
I have known a number people during my Foreign Service career who were killed by terrorists. Some I knew casually, others I knew quite well. In 1983, a US Navy captain from JUSMAG (Joint United States Military Advisory Group) in Athens, George Tsantos, was gunned down by a Greek terrorist. This was not a killing by an Islamic Terrorist, but still it was a terror attack. I used to play poker with George as well as a group of others when I was in Athens, so I knew him well! But perhaps the death that hit home closest was the death of a young woman who was one of the casualties of the Nairobi bombing in 1998.
Michelle Denny was a young woman that both my wife Jo and I knew very well. In fact she was like a kid sister to Jo. Michelle was an Administrative Officer at the Consulate General in Guayaquil, Ecuador when we were there 1988-92. She got married in Ecuador to her long time boy friend who came out to Guayaquil and the wedding took place in our house. She left Ecuador and was assigned to Montevideo, Uruguay. When she finished her tour of duty in Montevideo, she contacted me and asked me to help her get a posting to Nairobi. This is a very common practice in the Foreign Service and many jobs are secured in this fashion. "Corridor Reputation" is extremely important, so having someone vouch for you is a good way to get a job.
At the time I knew the DCM (Deputy Chief of the Mission) in Nairobi quite well, so I called him and told him about Michelle. I told him what a great officer she was and how bright she was. My friend thanked me for the input and said that he would choose her for the job of General Services Officer at the embassy. So, Michelle got the job in Nairobi. When I heard in 1998 that she was killed in the bombing, it numbed me at first. I confess to even having a sense of guilt for having helped her get to Nairobi! Michelle died in that Al Qaeda bombing, leaving behind a husband and two daughters.
In September of 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, along with three other Americans, was killed by Al Qaeda sponsored attack on the Consulate. I knew Chris Stevens from Cairo, back in 1995-96. At the time, Chris was a second tour officer, having been in the Foreign Service about four years or so. He was a tall, good looking young man with an unruly mop of sandy hair, stereotypical image of a California surfer! In fact, Chris was from California and he was a surfer! Many a female employee in my section had a crush on him! Chris worked for me for about nine months before he left post for bigger and better things. He was bright, friendly, hard working, and spoke very good Arabic. He was everything you would want in a Foreign Service Officer. I left Cairo in 1997 for Tijuana, Mexico, but kept tabs on Chris. He moved up rapidly through the ranks and I was not surprised to hear that he was appointed ambassador to Libya in 2011.
Just as in the case of Michelle Denny earlier, it was a shock to hear of Chris's death announced on TV news......the same way I first heard about Michelle's death! They were two people that I knew very well, and their lives were cut short, cruelly and violently by Islamic Terrorists. They were killed not by "extremists" as suggested by Washington, but by Al Qaeda, the Islamic Terrorists.
John Quincy Adams was reluctant to go to war against the Barbary Pirates, the Islamic Terrorist of that period. He said that if we went to war against them (Islamic Terrorists), we would be fighting them for a long, long time! How prophetic! Adams wasn't keen on paying the pirates, but he didn't want to go to war either. It was problematic, a difficult choice, which was fortunately left up to Jefferson to make, and he chose to go to war.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Things Fall Apart
........"Things fall apart, the center cannot hold,
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
Those are the third and fourth lines taken from the opening stanza of W.B. Yeats' poem, The Second Coming. The two lines almost perfectly describe what is taking place in the world today as a result of Washinton's inaction or wrong action. Perhaps the most blatantly obvious result of our inaction is what just happened in Moscow, the assassination of Putin's opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov. Anyone who thinks that Putin was not involved in this Mafia style hit needs to have their head examined. Putin, after being relatively quiet, a sort of a closet KGB for a number of years, has fully bloomed into what he really is - a KGB hardliner! Remember, he said that the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century was the demise of the Soviet Union!
It may have all started earlier, but it came to surface when we did nothing with Syria when the rebels asked for help. Putin was selling arms to the regime (he is still selling) and did not want to lose a lucrative market. We, on the other hand, could have done something, but we didn't do anything except make a lot of threats, draw a "thin red line" that the regime crossed immediately and we still didn't do anything! What a message we sent! This was followed by the tragedy in Benghazi, where we tried to cover up our inaction and stupidity by claiming at first that it was not an Al Qaeda sponsored attack! Putin, along with our other enemies, saw immediately that they could push the envelop, so to speak. Putin's adventure in Ukraine is a direct result of our inaction in Syria and Libya. Putin took Crimea, and we didn't do anything. Oh yes, we instituted some sanctions that no doubt hurt Russia, but not enough! Now, on the verge of taking over the eastern part of Ukraine, so as to have a clear open land bridge to Crimea, Putin decided to get rid of some of his opposition. Poker may be an American card game, but Putin sure as hell plays it better than Washington!
Nemtsov was gunned down on the streets of Moscow, ironically not far from the Red Square, in a typical heavy-handed KGB style assassination. Oh sure, Putin is going through the motions of having an investigation into the matter, and who knows, he might even come up with some "guilty" parties and hold a kangaroo court! But he isn't fooling anyone, except perhaps Washington! It is obvious at this point that he is not taking Washington seriously and will do whatever he wants, regardless of our protests! History has proven time and again that you cannot deal with dictators, that you have to be firm! Putin's latest acts, the Ukraine takeover and assassination of Nemtsov is reminiscent of Hitler's takeover of Czechoslovakia and the elimination of his opposition at home. Hitler did those things knowing that England and France (world powers at the time) would not do anything, he was right! Putin completely discounts Europe, he does not see Europe as a military threat, besides, they need his oil and gas! America, on the other hand, is/was his only obstacle. But he now sees the U.S. whether correctly or not, as a "paper tiger," a lot of noise but no action!
Not to miss the opportunity of our inaction to various situation around the world, North Korea has speeded up its nuclear program. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the problem is that they are on the verge of making more! It is estimated that within the next 5 years they will have about 80 nuclear devices, which they can sell! The biggest danger with North Korea and its nuclear weapons is that they will sell them to terrorist states who will not hesitate to use them on Israel or the West! As with Russia, when it comes to North Korea we seem to have a reactive approach with ad hoc policies that we develop "on the fly," so to speak. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me why we don't take North Korea more seriously and why, when we've been dealing with Russia (as U.S.S.R.) for so many years that we can't come up with a more comprehensive, intelligent policy! But we seem to be simply throwing things against the wall to see if it sticks, that seems to be the extent of our policies in dealing with Russian and North Korea.
Our latest international foreign policy coupe is the forthcoming "deal" that we are planning to strike with Iran. I don't know how many Americans really know what that "deal" is, but let me just summarize it for you. It is essentially a one-sided deal where we lift sanctions and un-freeze Iranian funds and allow them to sell petroleum on the world market. In return, Iran "promises" not to develop its nuclear arsenal. There are no inspections, no controls of any kind, and Iran is not giving up anything! Some deal, small wonder our European allies don't want to have anything to do with it! France even goes so far as to say that it is "dumb" deal! Ah...but we have dialogue with Iran and reached an agreement! Never mind that the agreement only favors Iran, but we reached an agreement!
In striking this deal with Iran (or about to strike the deal), we have alienated our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. Let's be honest, we have no allies in the Middle East except for Israel. All of our "friends" other than Israel will turn their backs on us in a second! Look how difficult it is each time to form any sort of support from those Arab countries whenever we need help to fight terrorists in their land! Yet, to strike this "none deal" with Iran, we are willing to alienate our closest ally. We have been known to do this before, so it isn't anything new. But it doesn't make it any more palatable!
On a smaller scale, but no less important, last year we traded five hard core Taliban prisoners for Army deserter, Bowe Bergdahl. We did this, although we have a standing policy of not dealing with terrorists! Bergdahl is a deserter. The fact that he became a "prisoner" of Taliban is not only questionable, but a side issue. The point is that he voluntarily walked off his post in his attempt to get a way from his Army duty. His last letter (email) to his parents shows the degree of his discontent and his desire to get away from it all! The note he left with his unit also clearly stated that he was leaving, deserting, his unit. So, we trade five known terrorists, despite our no dealing with terrorists policy, for a deserter! At the same time, we refuse to even discuss the possibility of negotiating with terrorists on the release of a young woman who was working as a volunteer in Syria to help the unfortunates! We would not negotiate or trade for Kayla Mueller, but we traded five known terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl, an Army deserter! You know, there was a time when deserters were shot!
There is something terribly wrong with our policies in general, whether it is dealing with other nations, or even dealing with terrorists! I guess the problem is that we have no policies, everything is done ad hoc, on the fly! When you don't have policies on important issues and when you do have them and not follow them, sooner or later, things fall apart!
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."
Those are the third and fourth lines taken from the opening stanza of W.B. Yeats' poem, The Second Coming. The two lines almost perfectly describe what is taking place in the world today as a result of Washinton's inaction or wrong action. Perhaps the most blatantly obvious result of our inaction is what just happened in Moscow, the assassination of Putin's opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov. Anyone who thinks that Putin was not involved in this Mafia style hit needs to have their head examined. Putin, after being relatively quiet, a sort of a closet KGB for a number of years, has fully bloomed into what he really is - a KGB hardliner! Remember, he said that the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century was the demise of the Soviet Union!
It may have all started earlier, but it came to surface when we did nothing with Syria when the rebels asked for help. Putin was selling arms to the regime (he is still selling) and did not want to lose a lucrative market. We, on the other hand, could have done something, but we didn't do anything except make a lot of threats, draw a "thin red line" that the regime crossed immediately and we still didn't do anything! What a message we sent! This was followed by the tragedy in Benghazi, where we tried to cover up our inaction and stupidity by claiming at first that it was not an Al Qaeda sponsored attack! Putin, along with our other enemies, saw immediately that they could push the envelop, so to speak. Putin's adventure in Ukraine is a direct result of our inaction in Syria and Libya. Putin took Crimea, and we didn't do anything. Oh yes, we instituted some sanctions that no doubt hurt Russia, but not enough! Now, on the verge of taking over the eastern part of Ukraine, so as to have a clear open land bridge to Crimea, Putin decided to get rid of some of his opposition. Poker may be an American card game, but Putin sure as hell plays it better than Washington!
Nemtsov was gunned down on the streets of Moscow, ironically not far from the Red Square, in a typical heavy-handed KGB style assassination. Oh sure, Putin is going through the motions of having an investigation into the matter, and who knows, he might even come up with some "guilty" parties and hold a kangaroo court! But he isn't fooling anyone, except perhaps Washington! It is obvious at this point that he is not taking Washington seriously and will do whatever he wants, regardless of our protests! History has proven time and again that you cannot deal with dictators, that you have to be firm! Putin's latest acts, the Ukraine takeover and assassination of Nemtsov is reminiscent of Hitler's takeover of Czechoslovakia and the elimination of his opposition at home. Hitler did those things knowing that England and France (world powers at the time) would not do anything, he was right! Putin completely discounts Europe, he does not see Europe as a military threat, besides, they need his oil and gas! America, on the other hand, is/was his only obstacle. But he now sees the U.S. whether correctly or not, as a "paper tiger," a lot of noise but no action!
Not to miss the opportunity of our inaction to various situation around the world, North Korea has speeded up its nuclear program. North Korea already has nuclear weapons, the problem is that they are on the verge of making more! It is estimated that within the next 5 years they will have about 80 nuclear devices, which they can sell! The biggest danger with North Korea and its nuclear weapons is that they will sell them to terrorist states who will not hesitate to use them on Israel or the West! As with Russia, when it comes to North Korea we seem to have a reactive approach with ad hoc policies that we develop "on the fly," so to speak. It is absolutely incomprehensible to me why we don't take North Korea more seriously and why, when we've been dealing with Russia (as U.S.S.R.) for so many years that we can't come up with a more comprehensive, intelligent policy! But we seem to be simply throwing things against the wall to see if it sticks, that seems to be the extent of our policies in dealing with Russian and North Korea.
Our latest international foreign policy coupe is the forthcoming "deal" that we are planning to strike with Iran. I don't know how many Americans really know what that "deal" is, but let me just summarize it for you. It is essentially a one-sided deal where we lift sanctions and un-freeze Iranian funds and allow them to sell petroleum on the world market. In return, Iran "promises" not to develop its nuclear arsenal. There are no inspections, no controls of any kind, and Iran is not giving up anything! Some deal, small wonder our European allies don't want to have anything to do with it! France even goes so far as to say that it is "dumb" deal! Ah...but we have dialogue with Iran and reached an agreement! Never mind that the agreement only favors Iran, but we reached an agreement!
In striking this deal with Iran (or about to strike the deal), we have alienated our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. Let's be honest, we have no allies in the Middle East except for Israel. All of our "friends" other than Israel will turn their backs on us in a second! Look how difficult it is each time to form any sort of support from those Arab countries whenever we need help to fight terrorists in their land! Yet, to strike this "none deal" with Iran, we are willing to alienate our closest ally. We have been known to do this before, so it isn't anything new. But it doesn't make it any more palatable!
On a smaller scale, but no less important, last year we traded five hard core Taliban prisoners for Army deserter, Bowe Bergdahl. We did this, although we have a standing policy of not dealing with terrorists! Bergdahl is a deserter. The fact that he became a "prisoner" of Taliban is not only questionable, but a side issue. The point is that he voluntarily walked off his post in his attempt to get a way from his Army duty. His last letter (email) to his parents shows the degree of his discontent and his desire to get away from it all! The note he left with his unit also clearly stated that he was leaving, deserting, his unit. So, we trade five known terrorists, despite our no dealing with terrorists policy, for a deserter! At the same time, we refuse to even discuss the possibility of negotiating with terrorists on the release of a young woman who was working as a volunteer in Syria to help the unfortunates! We would not negotiate or trade for Kayla Mueller, but we traded five known terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl, an Army deserter! You know, there was a time when deserters were shot!
There is something terribly wrong with our policies in general, whether it is dealing with other nations, or even dealing with terrorists! I guess the problem is that we have no policies, everything is done ad hoc, on the fly! When you don't have policies on important issues and when you do have them and not follow them, sooner or later, things fall apart!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)