Come Clarity

Good news and bad news.  The good news is that progressive media, also known as the blogosphere and its various cohorts, continues to grow and reach an ever larger segment of the population.   This is great as it separates the people with undue influence over the news we here from our ability to learn about the issues.  I am not suggesting that an article or blog can not have an agenda or an opinion.   Much in the same way that CNN or Fox News will present their [very conservative, at the least pro-business] agenda the bloggers and reporters of the internet will present theirs.  At least on the internet you have the resources to construct your own opinion.

The bad news is that the Right shows no intention of slowing down the torrent of misinformation they barrage their listeners with every day.  Talk radio is still alive and well.  Fox News still reaches millions of households.  Murdoch and the Right  continue buying up every newspaper in sight.   There are still quite a few people who will take their “news” fed to them by the sources they trust and never venture out into the world wide web in order to see a different picture.  My suspicion is that conservatives, typically older already, are going to further insulate themselves.  This is already clear in polling that shows hard line conservatives in America sharply deviating from the moderates and liberals. 

This would not bother me as much if it was not for the fact that I still have to interact with these conservatives.  Do not take me wrong.  I enjoy the interaction and do not want them to leave or any other nonsense that was told to me 8 years ago when I [correctly] opposed a war and the massive looting of our coffers by private contractors.  But still, conversations often turn to politics and often I find myself alone in a see of ignorance.  I can understand and  ignore the apathetic.  It is the energetic conservatives that drive me crazy.  There is no reasoning with someone whose basic conception of the world is so fundamentally off.   You want to have different opinions?  Please do.  You can not make up your own reality. 

Well you can, but it is very sad.

Paul Soapbox Bloggers, Coporate Media

I covered in my last entry what essentially amounts to the end of traditional warfare.  I view this as the inevitable outcome of technological advance.  What we have seen for  years in Hollywood and for the last decade in practice has finally come to fruition.  Robots are now on the battlefield fighting alongside our men and women.

It is generally accepted that warfare offers nothing to the common man.  We just do not have much incentive to participate.  It has been true for hundreds of years now that the best way to get men and women interested in slaughtering the village over the next hill is through nationalism.  Appealing to our base instincts and tribalistic mind will only get the war so far.  Eventually people sour to watching their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers coming home in caskets.  Or not at all.  This is why George Bush did not allow photographers to document the casualties of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Us simple minded folk just do not have the stomach to help our oil companies fight the good fight.  Robots on the other hand have no such qualms.

During the Iraq / Aghanistan war many were first introduced to the MQ-1 Predator [although it has seen service for much longer].  It is currently the most common UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] in use by our military.  It is primarily used for reconnaissance, but also carries two Hellfire missiles for taking out targets of opportunity.  The military has had limited success using these drones to carry out attacks over the last couple of years, depending on who you ask.  The military would consider it a rousing success.  Fly a Predator or Reaper drone into the tribal area of Pakistan, blow up a house full of people, pat yourself on the back, and head home for the night.  The “collateral damage” aspect leaves much to be desired.  Some people may think assassinating 10 innocent people along with the target is an acceptable loss, but those who realize the immense cost this has to our security in creating anti-American sentiment and in being a superb recruiting tool for our enemies know its just not practical.  Currently it takes a pretty large staff to run one of these drones, but I think its safe to assume that this requirement will decrease as the technology advances, probably to the point that its unnecessary to have a human present at all.   Fear not Hollywood, the government is hard at work creating your armies of robotic vehicles as well!

Technology advances rapidly and the potential for these drones will increase exponentially.  Only time will tell where this takes us, but the needs of asymmetrical warfare practically beg for these kinds of solutions.

Paul Soapbox 21st Century War, Predator, UAV

War has changed over the last century.  It has not evolved mind you.  We have merely circled back around to a mode of warfare that turns up any time one force or power becomes extremely dominant.  Today we are calling it terrorism.  It is also called an insurgency and its members, depending on whose side the speaker ends up on, rebels or freedom fighters.  Fundamentally it is a very ancient concept.  When you can no longer afford to face your opponent on the field you are forced to skirmish.  You engage your enemy in its soft spots.  You harass its communications, its economy, even its psychology.  In the past it mainly took place in rural areas.  

The American Revolution was fought in this way.  The British sailed their armies in and took control of the major cities, waiting for the American army to meet it in the field.  Unable to match the superior training, firepower, and manpower of the British forces the Revolutionary Army [an insurgency, British Rebels certainly from their point of view] the Revolutionaries fought in the hinterlands.  They raided, interrupted, captured, and generally caused all the chaos that insurgencies have been causing for thousands of years.  This concept is very easy for most Americans to grasp.  It makes sense to them.

Which is why it is strange that the idea that these very same tactics seem so foreign and obscure to us today.  There has only been one change in the last century or so and that is in the urbanization rates.  While in years past the majority of a population could be found in  rural aress this is simply not the case now.  Because of this, insurgencies have to be carried out in the urban centers where the fighters can melt into the civillian populace and raid supplies and other resources.  The warfare has not changed, but the location has.

This is of course the only way to stand up against any modern western power.  You could buy large quantities of the machinary for modern warfare, but when an Abrams tank can shoot twice as far as the competition there is no point.  When a cruise missle can take off from 20 miles off the coast and wipe out your bunkers there is no point.  In a bizarre way, by being so incredibly dominant, we have forced an era of massive civilian casualities on any who oppose us because that is the only option they have left.  This is a very problematic cycle because if there is one thing which breeds rebels and insurgents the quickest it is the loss of family, community, and future that comes out of civilian bombings.  By turning larges swathes of civilian population into victims we are greatly increasing our insecurity.

We are not the first to back ourselves into this corner.  I am going to write about where our military will likely go next [unmanned craft] and the other dynamic which will shape the 21st century which is what happens when our technological advantage fades [similar to what Rome experienced].

Paul Soapbox Insurgency, Rebels, Urban Warfare, War

I really do not feel the need to go into all the garbage that has been spewed by our politicians and the media at Iran.  Hopefully, you realize how much trash is involved.  If you do not, well, you can take my word for it or do some investigation of your own. 

I have to say that I am proud to see them doing what Americans should have done in  2000.  Regardless of whether Mousavi represents a departure from the norms, the Iranian people clearly feel something is up with the results and they are applying the right kind of pressure.  I understand that the real power in Iran is behind the scenes in the various committees and ruling bodies.  Still, its encouraging to see them willing to take to the streets and enforce their will and dare I say it, democratic right.  Something not enough of us [myself included] could find the strength to accomplish.

I hope they get their new election and I sincerely desire for this event to tame much of the hateful rhetoric spewed towards our Persian cousins.  At least for as long as we can.  Someday I would love to visit a place with such a rich and varied history and that is hardly possible in our current political climate.

Paul Soapbox Elections, Iran

Government does not work!  Government is the problem!  Now vote for me so I can get into government and ruin everything!

Frankly I may never fully understand why this argument is so persuasive.  My best guess is that it circles around the fact that the benefits of government are so obvious that they do not require stating.  This poses a problem then for the 24 hour news cycle crowd who then gets bombarded by this conservative meme all day.  It saddens me that people would need to be reminded that all the best things they enjoy in life are only possible because of the government.

Things are further complicated by the fact that 2/3 of our elected officials [and yes 88% of all statistics are made up] are either representing the people who want to weaken government or getting paid by the same.   Ignoring the fact that even with all of these anti-government forces at the helm the government still manages to do a very good job providing goods and services, the comparison between the proposed zero government world and one where the government is not hamstrung is favorable.   The current level of starvation of the federal government makes the failures obvious.  It would be like breaking a pro golfer’s arm and wondering why he struggles to hit the par.

Paul Soapbox Conservatives, Government