"The Future of Warfare on Dispaly"

Those who get their news from the traditional media were undoubtedly dumbfounded on Sep. 17 when a story about private military company Blackwater USA made world news.
Blackwater, a private company that provides mercenaries to protect US State Department personnel in Iraq got into trouble when its soldiers killed some “Iraqi civilians” (armed terrorists) in a firefight in Baghdad. The Iraqi government promptly pulled Blackwater’s mercenary license but the State Department balked because Blackwater is our diplomats’ primary defense against the bad guys in Iraq.
Average people were undoubtedly shocked to learn that the Marines weren’t protecting our diplomats but anybody familiar with the course warfare is taking wasn’t. Blackwater is a prime example of what Col. William Lindh and others call Fourth Generational Warfare. That is warfare waged by entities other than the state, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, drug cartels and private companies like Blackwater.
Blackwater is one of many American and British private military companies that operate in Iraq. Some reports indicate that there are as many as 100,000 military contactors operating in Iraq.
These contractors do what the military can’t, they operate in an aggressive, violent manner, make deals with terrorists and other local thugs and bring in large numbers of professional soldiers from countries outside the coalition. Blackwater the most visible of these companies operates fleets of helicopter gunships and armored vehicles in Iraq.
Much of the success of Blackwater and it’s British competitor Aegis Defense Services is based upon private companies ability to pay much higher salaries than the military. Highly trained soldiers from the US Special Forces (Navy Seals, Delta Force, Green Berets, etc.) and Her Majesty’s Special Air Services and Commando units retire from uniform to get much higher pay and stock options in private industry. These companies are also able to recruit highly trained soldiers from other countries such as Chile and Austria to augment their forces.
Suddenly the state in the form of the so-called Iraqi Government and the US Congress have noticed Blackwater’s existence. Which is funny because Blackwater has been around for ten years, other private military companies are even older.
The assault on Blackwater maybe the state trying to reassert its authority or it maybe based on more crass motives. Iraqi politicians maybe incensed because they aren’t getting any bribes from Blackwater, Iraqi soldiers maybe angry because they aren’t getting enough of the lucrative military contracts and our Congress.
Well, next year is going to be a very costly election and Blackwater may not be writing enough checks to Democratic campaigns. Also note Blackwater is a heavily Republican company, its owner Erik Prince was a staffer in the first Bush White House. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that Nancy Pelosi and company want to give Blackwater’s contract to a competitor run by a good Democrat. Or to force Prince to get out his check book and start writing checks to Democrats.
My guess is that this is far from the last we hear about Private Military Companies and Blackwater. Bill Clinton made extensive use of them when he was President, and with the unpopularity of traditional military action in Iraq Hillary will probably see them as a politically palatable alternative to the Pentagon. The UN is looking at Blackwater, etc. for Peacekeeping.
The only question is when will Chinese, Russian and Indian private military companies (perhaps backed by those nations’ militaries) deploy forces that are cheaper and more effective than Blackwater’s. I wonder will Americans settle for foreign companies defending their interests in the Middle East? I have a feeling that if the question is “hire Chinese mercenaries to kill Arabs or draft your sons” the answer will be “hire as many as Chinese as possible….” As Matt Drudge would say the story is developing.

Why We Haven’t Caught Bin Laden and How To Catch Him

With the sixth anniversary of September 11 just past Americans are asking why we haven’t caught Osama Bin Laden and more importantly how do we catch him?
The US hasn’t caught Bin Laden because our military, our intelligence community, our diplomatic service and our whole system of government simply aren’t set up to deal with foes like Al Qaeda. Our military, with the exception of a few elite special services units, is set up to fight large scale wars against well organized and heavily armed enemies like the Communists. Our intelligence services are set up to spy on highly-centralized and heavily-bureaucratic dictatorships like the Soviet Union and our diplomatic service to conduct relations with traditional nation states.
None of the arms of our governments was set up to deal with an enemy like Bin Laden or an organization like Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a government, it doesn’t have a capitol, it doesn’t control any territory or have an organized military force.
When the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan Bin Laden and Company, simply packed up and moved to Northern Pakistan. If we invade Northern Pakistan, as that military genius Barrack Obama demands, Bin Laden will move elsewhere.
Obviously there is no way for traditional military forces which are set up to invade nations and occupy territory to deal with such a foe. Nor is it easy for intelligence agencies designed to spy on governments to gather intelligence about a loosely organized network of fanatics who hide among the general population. Diplomats who are used to negotiating with leaders who live in palaces aren’t going to be of much use negotiating with foes who hide in back alleys.
To make matters worse, our political leaders simply aren’t interested in reforming our national government to deal with the new reality. Reforming the military and the intelligence community would threaten the vast military industrial complex which is a huge source of profits for business and campaign contributions for politicians. Nor does the State Department want to admit that it and its brand of diplomacy are dinosaurs incapable of dealing with the new political situation.
With a government that is unwilling to change with the times, it is easy to see how a new school enemy like Bin Laden can outwit and evade us. So we have to ask how do we catch Bin Laden?
The answer is easy: turn his own tactics against him by fighting the kind of war Bin Laden fights. Bin Laden fights a war in the shadows using his wits and his money to organize and fund proxies that fight his battles for him.
There is no reason why the United States couldn’t fight such a war against Al Qaeda and win. We’ve done so in the past and won big by employing such tactics.
During the Cold War the US suffered a humiliating setback in Vietnam when it resorted to overwhelming military force. US forces were able to defeat the Communist guerillas in the field but couldn’t wipe them out completely. When American forces pulled out of Vietnam, the Communists simply came back and won the war.
When the US switched tactics in the Cold War, largely under Reagan, and waged war through proxies: anti-Communist guerrilla forces, friendly governments and front groups we won. In Afghanistan US allies were able to inflict humiliating losses on the mighty Red Army and in Latin America we stopped the Communist advance dead in its tracks. By 1991, the Soviet Union was so battered by this covert warfare and its own weakness it collapsed.
The nation that defeated the Soviet Union at its own game should be able to easily dispense with someone like Bin Laden. Instead of deploying massive military forces to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan we should be deploying our money and our covert operations spooks. It shouldn’t be too hard to hire local warlords and tribesmen to wage war on our enemies in those places.
We could control Afghanistan through local warlords and perhaps make a strategic alliance with the opium growers. We could control Iraq through Shiite and Sunni militias.
Most importantly we could get Bin Laden by making deals with the tribal leaders who are harboring him in North Pakistan. It shouldn’t be too hard for the US to bypass the Pakistani government and talk directly with the tribal leaders. I imagine many of them will be interested in listening to us, especially if we spread a lot of cash around there. Then we can work up a face saving deal in which the tribes can surrender Bin Laden and liquidate the Al Qaeda operatives in the area perhaps in a mock military operation.
Unfortunately this isn’t going to happen anytime soon because it would take creative out of the box thinking on the part of our leaders. That would be probably be far too much to ask for in today’s world.

Iraq & Vietnam: Promoting the War

The Pentagon and the supporters of the Iraq War have learned an important lesson from the Vietnam War: how to manipulate the media, public opinion and politics to force America to take an unpopular course of action.
During the Vietnam War the majority of Americans supported the war and the general strategy behind it, yet US ally South Vietnam eventually fell to Communism. This occurred because war opponents were a vocal and well-organized minority that was passionately dedicated to its’cause. War supporters; however, were a passive and disorganized majority whose support for the war was lukewarm at best.
The opposition to the Vietnam was a textbook example of the success of a minority that never gave up. The Vietnam opponents had a simple message, they stuck to it, and they kept spreading the message. War supporters meanwhile ignored the antiwar movement or dismissed it as a collection of leftist cranks and hippies.
By being passionate and dedicated the war opponents could give strong and effective support to those few politicians who opposed the war. When mainstream media figures came out against the war, they could be portrayed as courageous.
The situation seems to be reversed in the present conflict, war supporters are a vocal and passionate minority while opponents a passive and disinterested majority. We now have the reverse of Vietnam, America is being manipulated into maintaining an unpopular war effort.
Iraq War supporters are a small and sophisticated ideologically-charged minority who are adept at manipulating the media, public opinion and politics to promote their cause. In other words the Iraq War supporters are much like the Vietnam War opponents who were determined, sophisticated and dedicated. In some notable cases they are the same people, aging leftists turned Neoconservatives.
America is being manipulated into participating in an unpopular war much as it was manipulated into pulling out of another conflict over 30 years ago. Where this will lead, I don’t know but I have feeling the end results will be nothing like those in Vietnam.

Conversation with Jennings Rails and Liberty

Question: You’re a libertarian yet you’re a strong advocate of rail transit why?
Answer: I believe in reason rail is simply the fastest, most efficient mode of ground transportation available. It’s also a form of ground transportation that can be financed, designed and built by private companies. When private companies have to design and build a ground transportation system they usually go with rail.
Question: Libertarians usually see rail especially mass transit as a socialist conspiracy and a the automobile as a symbol of liberty. You disagree with them why?
Answer: They’re wrong. It’s that simple, yes some socialists, liberals and progressives promote rail and mass transit. That doesn’t mean rail and mass transit are bad, merely that some bad people believe in them. In the United States the automobile is supported by a massive socialist tax supported road and highway system. This is almost entirely government owned and operated and I might add a product of Central Planning similar to that in the old Soviet Union. How is that a symbol of liberty?
Question: But auto supporters say the automobile provides individual transportation and freedom?
Answer: Well yes it does but shouldn’t it be the average person’s choice to own and drive one or not. Most Americans own cars because they have no choice. A great many Americans couldn’t reach the basic needs of life without a car. How is that liberty? People are forced to buy cars because of decisions made by central planners that is Socialism isn’t it. Shouldn’t people have a choice whether to buy and drive a car or not. Most of us don’t have the choice. If the car is as wonderful as the auto apologists say then people would choose it themselves.
Question: Do you support government subsidies for mass transportation and rail?
Answer: No. I’d like to see all government subsidies for transportation cars, planes, trains, light rail, buses etc. abolished. Government run transportation has been a disaster that has stripped average Americans of their basic freedoms, left us dependant on foreign oil, and left most of us stuck in gridlock. We’re wasting our tax dollars on highways that are essentially 1930s technology and rail transit systems that are just a souped up version of what we had in 1910. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if private entrepreneurs could provide us with transportation the same way we get Internet service. Imagine what computers would be like if Bill Gates had to go to Congress to get permission to introduce new software? There are lots of inventors out there with innovative new technologies that will never get off the ground because government is making the decisions. If the automobile is so wonderful, then those people who love it should pay for it. If they want highways to drive on let them have toll roads. If they want gasoline let them pay whatever the Arabs will charge for it.
Question: You’ve backed some government mass transit systems why?
Answer: Simple, I’m a tax payer. I know that in modern America ending transportation subsidies would be politically impossible. Since government is going to spend my money anyway it might as well be on something useful I agree with.
Question: Most Libertarians and conservatives oppose rail and back the car why?
Answer: Mainly because they’re ignorant of history. They don’t know where the highway system came from it was designed and built by the Progressives, the same American socialists who gave us the Income Tax, Prohibition, Racial Segregation, the FBI, Two World Wars and the Draft. Highway construction was part of their war on individual freedom and private business. They deliberately and systematically replaced private transportation systems with their government run system. The idea was to give America a centrally controlled transportation system owned and run by the government.
The highway builders seized vast amounts of private property to build their roads and bulldozed entire neighborhoods to do so. In New York City, highway builder Robert Moses engaged in a sort of ethnic cleansing bulldozing ethnic neighborhoods full of poor people for roads that white middle class people would drive on. The only thing they know about the rail car debate is conservative propaganda which says rail bad car good. Learn the history of your own country. Back in 1910 when real estate developers wanted to subdivide land outside the city they had to build a new transportation artery to it. Today they pass the cost onto the taxpayers because they know the city or the county will build a road to them. I couldn’t think of a better means of controlling sprawl. Let those who want to live in the countryside pay for the privilege.
Question: What do you think of the Peak Oil Thesis? The idea that we’ve reached the maximum level of oil production and that oil supplies will decline. Some Peak Oil Believers such as your friend James Kunstler think this will take society back to the 19th Century.
Answer: Well Peak Oil is for real. Most petroleum geologists agree with it. However, it won’t lead to the collapse of civilization. Nobody will have to start hoeing potatoes or driving a horse drawn buggy because of it. In fact Peak Oil maybe a good thing because it will force us to utilize other sources of energy.
Question: Why do you think Peak Oil could be a good thing?
Answer: We are dependant upon oil because there has been no economic incentive to develop alternate energy sources or invest in transportation technologies such as electric rail that don’t need oil. There has been no economic incentive for average people to turn to those alternatives. Peak oil will create that incentive.
Question: Does Peak Oil mean disaster for America and an end to the American dream?
Answer: It means a rude awakening a nasty jolt that will get us back on the right track. If you look around the world many of the richest societies, Switzerland, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, the Netherlands, Scandinavia are seriously lacking in resources yet they are prosperous and provide a good life for their citizens. Scarcity of resources provides an incentive for innovation and hard work. People are forced to pool their resources, get education and work hard. At the same time societies with abundance of resources such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia are among the most corrupt. A serious lack of resources will make America more technologically advanced and more progressive socially. It’ll help us achieve the American dream.
Question: What do you think the future of transportation is?
Answer: Unless Scotty invents us a working teleportation machine, rail is the best, fastest, most efficient and most effective ground transportation system along. So it’s the future of ground transportation. It’ll be augmented by improved automobiles and air travel. I doubt we’ll see flying cars but small aircraft that can be used for taxi and transport could be an effective alternative. Imagine if average people had the kind of air travel the rich have today. So my guess is that rail and air are the future of travel because those two modes are free of government interference.