Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Chickenhawk" should be reserved for the movers and shakers. "Pigeon Hawk" would be more appropriate for the dupes of the chickenhawks. And Merlins are a really cool bird.

Not that I think you're either of the above but this should surely raise the dialogue.

Posted by D Anghelone at December 28, 2006 05:21 AM

I think we should just start calling anonymous: "Chickenhawk"

Here's the rationale:
He obviously likes the term.
He is constantly attacking Rand, like a hawk, for expressing his views.
He is too chicken to go off and create his own blog which is analogous to his request that Rand go off to Iraq.
It provides him a name that the regulars can use.

As for the post: Josh makes great points. Ethopia is invading its neighbor, and it is hardly news. No offense to Rand (because he is just getting the news from MSM), but we are hearing more about rather common earthquakes than this invasion.

When you dig a little deeper into the story, the actual invasion may not be such a bad thing. Ethopia's actions may prevent AQ from gaining complete control over Somalia. As Josh points out, it is hard to determine if the "suffering" is truly something caused by the invasion or a recognition of events that were occurring prior to the invasion. Call it Ethopia's adoption of the Bush strategy of pre-emptive strikes, and the end result is another blow to Al Qaeda.

Posted by Leland at December 28, 2006 07:07 AM

No real surprise here. Most Americans don't realize it, but Ethiopia has a fine army, and a rather distinguished military tradition. They beat the armies of several European powers in the late 19th century, and only lost to Italy in the 1930's when Mussolini resorted to chemical warfare. The big question is what happens when the Ethiopians pull out. If they can hand off to a non-Islamist Somali government, this will be a major victory. By the way, the speed of the Ethiopians' victory is a good sign - it indicates that few Somalis have much sympathy for the so-called "Islamic Courts".

Posted by tschafer at December 28, 2006 07:14 AM

"Both" sides are missing the larger point.

Islamist regular armies are routinely routed by the West, or their allies such as Ethiopia. Therefore, to monger fear over the prospects of an Islamic version of Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht (a military capable of genuine conquest) is simply ridiculous.

With a few helicopter gunships, Ethiopia handily demolishes the Islamic Courts. Does anyone think Iran or Pakistan would fare better in a conventional war with India, let alone Britain or the United States?

But what does Ethiopia do now? Occupy Somolia and suffer the drip, drip, drip of casualties from Islamic terrorists? As in Iraq, the Islamicists cannot win (not even close) yet they may remain un-eradicated mounting a continuing insurgency.

It would seem a cruel analogy to compare Islamicist armies with that knight from Monty Python who seeks to fight even after losing 2 arms and 2 legs -- especially when the Islamists also resort to terror tactics and the murder of civilians, yet for the regular army the analogy has merit. No Islamicist army can stand in the field against the West (except perhaps for Hezbollah which Israel chose not to eradicate last summer in Lebanon).

But how do we eradicate insurgencies? Is unparalleled conventional military supremacy sufficient to accomplish that objective? Josh Trevino would have us link arms and sing "Onward Christian soldiers" and not ask such questions.

But then Josh Trevino fear "liberals" more than he fears the Islamists.

Posted by Bill White at December 28, 2006 08:17 AM

But what does Ethiopia do now?

That's your larger point? I think you missed the point. What Ethiopia was dealing with before was Somali refugees fleeing a country that had a recent coup from external entities that resulted in massive attacks against civilians. If Ethiopia simply ousts the thugs and returns control to the people of Somali, then Ethiopia's and Somalia's situation has improved. If Ethiopia does nothing, the situation only continues to deteriorate while a "full solution" is identified.

Bill, go spend some time at an ER and watch the triage unit at work. You'll note when the situation isn't critical, they'll go ahead and have the patient wait for a doctor who can provide the best care. However, when a person is bleeding, has chest pains, or breathing problems, triage doesn't wait for a the head physician to plan a regiment for full recovery; they act. Often, their actions are futile and the patient dies anyway. Does that mean what triage did was wrong?

Posted by Leland at December 28, 2006 09:05 AM

"United Nations officials warned of a dire humanitarian crisis inside Somalia, while fears remained high that Ethiopia's campaign could have disastrous consequences across the Horn of Africa."

How much bigger a crisis can there be than there is now, and has been for years? If the Somali forces kill or dislodge the Islamofascist warlords they'll do something our troops were never alloowed to do.

Kill people, break things and help the needy. Perhaps we need to send in some of our senior planners to learn who to wage war, 'cause our nation building isn't working to well.

Maybe the U.N. can feed and clothe people instead of feeding warlord troops after the troops are dead. What concept, kill the bad guys. Again something we've forgotten to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by Steve at December 28, 2006 09:33 AM

Leland, Ethiopia did what it had to do. I have no problem with that.

But now, Ethiopia (and others) needs to stabilize Somolia otherwise the refugees will not stop flowing.

Also, I am all for killing bad guys. Problem is telling good from bad is difficult and just killing some bad guys is not sufficient for final victory. Necessary? Okay. But not sufficient.

I recently replaced a weed infested front lawn. Eradication of the weeds was not sufficient. Had I not paid good money for new sod, the weeds would have come back.

We need to learn how to nation-build and no one in either party (Democratic or Republican) seems to have a clue on how to do that. Thus, in the meantime, we will periodically kill weeds and then wait for them to come back.

Posted by Bill White at December 28, 2006 09:51 AM

Bill: Well, for one thing, the Ethiopians might be willing to do things the United States isn't, like simply killing large numbers of Islamists without worrying as much about niceties like what the BBC or CNN is going to say about it.

That might give them a significant edge, both because they can kill large numbers of the enemy without worrying about the level of second-guessing and assumption-of-automatic-guilt that the US has to deal with, and because the Islamist foe in Somalia knows it and can't use it as a weapon.

(This is not to suggest that I think the US is necessarily wrong in being so careful about its actions, though I think the press is a bit too cavalier about completely ignoring the effects of their coverage on the actions of the other side...)

Posted by Sigivald at December 28, 2006 09:54 AM

Most non-Western militaries are not as sensitive to a "constant drip, drip, drip" of casualties as are Western countries. Ethiopia has been fighting a low-level insurgency along the Somali frontier for decades, and this is simply regarded in Addis as the price of having an unruly neighbor like Somalia. It's important to note how recent the current attitude toward casualties is, even in the West. Britain fought a near-constant war on India's North-Western Frontier for half a century, and this was simply regarded as part of the burden of Empire. Low-intensity conflict is just part of the background in many parts of what we style the "Third World", and if this seems "unenlightened" to us, we might want to compare it to our attitude toward traffic accidents - they are unfortunate, and should be reduced to a minimum, and are a tragedy for the families of the fallen, but no one is going to stop driving. The Ethiopian government probably believes that the Salafists are going to be at war with Ethiopia regardless, and that they would rather fight them in Somalia than Ethiopia.

Posted by tschafer at December 28, 2006 10:06 AM

It may be of interest that a Daily Kos poll on Ethiopian intervention is running 85% in favor of Ethiopia's actions in this matter.

Ethiopia is doing the needful and Somolia has been FUBAR for a long time. The Islamic Courts were supported (initially) because they ended the perpetual chaotic gang violence in the capital city, a genuine jumping from the frying pan into the fire moment for the Somali people.

But again, now what?

Okay. A few moments of relief that the Islamic Courts military is so inept. Hurrah!

Okay, now what?

Posted by Bill White at December 28, 2006 10:07 AM

It may be of interest that a Daily Kos poll on Ethiopian intervention is running 85% in favor of Ethiopia's actions in this matter.

That does not surprise me. Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that majority (85% ?) of Daily Kos crowd are roughly on Bill Clinton/John Kerry section of the political spectrum. Ward Churchill types are a minority there*. That section is sane enough to recognize the danger of Islamic radicals, they just don’t recognize its scale, and do not believe Bush Administration’s stated motives.

* A similar poll at Democratic Underground might give different results.

Posted by Ilya at December 28, 2006 10:46 AM

I for one believe that the Bush strategery against radical Islam is tossing gasoline on a fire.

Now, if Bush were to say he was wrong in 2000 to campaign against "nation building" and if he were to praise the approaches found in that novel "A Bell for Adano" and demand that the US Army field 10,000 fluent speakers of Arabic (the better to impress Anglo-sphere memes on Arab minds) amd call for an increased light infantry order of battle in lieu of the next Air Force wonder weapon, maybe he would have a clue.

That said, just about NO ONE in either political mainstream has a clue about how to run a successful counter insurgency. Too many here would be content to turn Tehran to glass and call it a day.

Infantry wins wars. Been that way for 3000 years and Israel's refusal to "go Okinawa" on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon last summer suggests they do not get it either.

Posted by Bill White at December 28, 2006 10:55 AM

"amd call for an increased light infantry order of battle in lieu of the next Air Force wonder weapon, maybe he would have a clue."

Yes, lets cancel the F-22 or the F-35.

Heavens knows the Chinese will be more impressed by 100,000 more lightly equipped grunts than iffy things like Air Superiority.

Here is what we call a Clue, don't prepare to fight the next war like the last one.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 28, 2006 12:04 PM

Mike, I agree China is our long term adversary (at least in a cultural sense but we have committed ourselves to stabilizing the Islamic regions of the Earth. Cannot do that with F-22s.

If we are to field another 100,000 soldiers AND build F-22s & F-35s we might need to think about (gasp!) raising taxes?

Remember, buying guns and butter sank LBJ.

Posted by Bill White at December 28, 2006 12:54 PM

If we are to field another 100,000 soldiers AND build F-22s & F-35s we might need to think about (gasp!) raising taxes?

Only if your ignorant of past history and macro-economics.

Posted by Leland at December 28, 2006 01:00 PM

"Mike, I agree China is our long term adversary (at least in a cultural sense but we have committed ourselves to stabilizing the Islamic regions of the Earth. Cannot do that with F-22s."

I would not increase troop strength and chose to bomb them into the stone age before I would give up future Air Superiority if I had to chose between the two.

A large war with say China without Air Superiority would be a recipe for a costly defeat with US Servicemembers being slaughtered by the tens of thousands. Totally unacceptible.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 28, 2006 01:25 PM

Mike, living in the Stone Age is what bin Laden seeks. Poverty assists him with his mission to force all Muslims to live fundamentalist lives.

And since our oil is under their sand, we need infantry. Get the US off petroleum and we can close the Straits of Hormuz and blow them all up with impunity.

A gasoline tax would (a) increase fuel efficiency and (b) raise money for F-35s.

= = =

Other than over Taiwan, where might we fight the Chinese in a conventional sense?

I see a powerful blue water Navy as perhaps being slightly more important than the Air Force, especially since China (like Japan) imports oil.

If China is smart, they will avoid a military conflict and merely pursue economic dominance. In part through a growing presence in African oil regions. If that leads to military confrontation, we will need that infantry as well as air power (a legitimate force multiplier).

Posted by Bill White at December 28, 2006 01:35 PM

Related, in a genuine conventional war with China (no nukes) one Chinese strategy would be to cut off Japan's oil imports unless Japan agreed to become a Chinese ally.

In that case, we will need a navy capable of e$corting oil tankers and stopping Chinese submarines and shore based long range anti-ship missiles. That requires sufficient Aegis class missile cruisers and carrier based airpower.

Posted by Bill White at December 28, 2006 01:38 PM

Bill,

Do you know what you call infantry without air Superiority?

Targets.

I used to be an Army guy, Armored cav to be precise but I understand the intangibles of things like mobility and not getting strafed in your sleep. No major power will win a war with another major power without domination of the skies and no military strategist worth his salt will argue otherwise.

Remember the quote about losers studying tactics and winners studying logistics?

Air Supierority is the foundation of logistics. If your supply trains are being interdicted, its game over.

BTE, the Navy is buying the F-35.

Perhaps instead of rasing taxes, we could cut n' run from the war on poverty. We have been losing it for fourty years at the cost of multiple trillions and it is the one war the left refuses to seek an 'exit strategy' for.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 28, 2006 01:54 PM

A gasoline tax would (a) increase fuel efficiency and (b) raise money for F-35s.

No.

If a gasoline tax increased fuel efficiency then then increased fuel efficiency will negatively effect the money raised by the gasoline tax. That's if you use the logic presented.

In reality, the cost would artificially increase without a change in supply or demand. Eventually demand would go down due to the articifical raise in cost thus increasing supply. With producers now losing revenue to the government (who is spending it elsewhere), they will be certain to not improve infrastructure (as they did for 10 years after the last hike in gasoline tax). Eventually, demand will begin to rise again, but now the infrastructure has aged and may no longer be able to keep up (as began happening in the late 1990s). While the government sees a short spike in revenue, the economy will eventually have to deal with the crisis in which supply can't meet demand due to failures in infrastructure. The economy then enters a depression as infrastruture is rebuilt and revenue is lost.

Again, a short study of recent past history and some education in macro-economics can prevent people from believing foolish rhetoric.

If we need more F-35s, then cut spending on the War on Drugs, DHS, War on Poverty, Medicare Drug Plans, etc... but if you want to put the economy into a depression, go ahead and raise taxes.

Posted by Leland at December 28, 2006 02:43 PM

leland says:

If a gasoline tax increased fuel efficiency then then increased fuel efficiency will negatively effect the money raised by the gasoline tax. That's if you use the logic presented.

------

Of course leland misses the point, the point of a gas tax isn't to
raise money, it's to reduce fuel consumption. That it produces
revenue is a side effect.

If fuel consumption drops, we import less fuel from the
middle east, we fund fewer terrorists.

As consumption drops, revenue to terrorists drops, meaning
we spend less having to fight them, meaning we need to
spend less on the military.

Posted by anonymous at December 28, 2006 03:04 PM

Simberg:

The New York times has the Somali war on the
front page of their web site. As for the Mis-reporting,
if you think the reporting is so bad, you figure out a
way to do a better job.

You don't have to go there, as you don't seem to be
advocating a war on somalia.

if you were advocating More american forces then the
few hundred special forces already there be committed,
and if you were attacking the media, well, then i'd suggest
you be there producing better media.

BTW the LA Times has the courage to have reporters in
Ramadi, I don't see you or the other neo-cons reporting
from Ramadi.

Posted by anonymous at December 28, 2006 03:08 PM

I check back in because I realized I forgot an important factor, and sure enough Chickenhawk provides his softball to hit out of the park:

Of course leland misses the point, the point of a gas tax isn't to raise money, it's to reduce fuel consumption. That it produces revenue is a side effect.

If fuel consumption drops, we import less fuel from the middle east, we fund fewer terrorists.

In an global economy a raise in gas tax in the US only effects US demand. Although US demand is high the drop in US usage will raise supply, lowering prices and raising demand in every other country. The US economy is impacted negatively while every other country, especially the middle eastern countries, economies benefit. US infrastructure will decline, but foreign infrastructure will develop.

Posted by Leland at December 28, 2006 04:37 PM

It's also worth noting that increased U.S. domestic oil production becomes more economically viable when world oil prices rise.

Posted by McGehee at December 28, 2006 05:45 PM

"...and demand that the US Army field 10,000 fluent speakers of Arabic (the better to impress Anglo-sphere memes on Arab minds) amd call for an increased light infantry order of battle in lieu of the next Air Force wonder weapon, maybe he [Bush] would have a clue."

Good grief.

For someone so quick to offer military advice you should pay attention to what the military has been doing over the last six years before criticizing.

Part of the reason some voices from the Pentagon, mostly US Army, have leaked hostile information intended to damage Bush is because the Bush administration has already been canceling big-ticket military programs and converting formations into infantry units! The US Army lost it's attack-helicopter replacement project, the Comanche, and lost it's artillery replacement project, the Crusader, while many artillery units have been converted to MP or infantry units. On top of that the Navy is likely to lose it's DDX cruiser project. So the idea that the Bush administration has mishandled DOD procurement is just another military-myth put out by partisan Democrats.

Force structure is too small? Not enough 'boots on the ground'? How do you think the US Army shrunk from 16 active divisions at the end of the Cold War to the 10 division force Bush inherited in 2001? Eight years of Clinton, that's how. There's a reason why the Democrats have lost the military vote, the Demcrats have not been an informed or serious voice on military/national security matters ever since George McGovern was their presidential nominee; and that condition doesn't look to improve over the foreseeable future which is bad for the Democrats and bad for the nation.

Posted by Brad at December 28, 2006 06:45 PM

leland

you don't believe in free trade?

Posted by anonymous at December 29, 2006 12:28 AM

Chickenhawk, I'm sorry you don't have the cognitive skills to understand what I wrote. If you did, you would already know the answer to your question. Since you don’t know the answer and considering your previous arguments, I can only conclude you are ignorant as to what “free trade” is. Therefore, there is no point in me saying I agree or disagree with free trade, because I’m giving a disposition on a concept that you can not grasp.

Posted by Leland at December 29, 2006 05:32 AM

Brad,

I remember the US Army being pissed that Rumsfeld cancelled the Crusader project. He really never recovered support after that. The interesting thing is; I read just this week an observation from a marine that they hardly use artillery any more. They found it far easier to lase a target and have a F-18 hit it. The accuracy is better and their position isn't given away.

Posted by Leland at December 29, 2006 05:50 AM

The New York times has the Somali war on the
front page of their web site

I just checked www.nytimes.com

"Somalia Forces Retake Capital From Islamists" is a small link well below main page (you have to scroll down two screenfulls to find it), in the same font as about a hundred other links -- to such momentous articles as "Prosecutor in Duke Case Faces Ethics Complaint" or "Apple Filing to Tell All on Options". Only someone actively searching for WORLD news will notice it.

Posted by Ilya at December 29, 2006 06:52 AM

> demand that the US Army field 10,000 fluent speakers of Arabic (the better to impress Anglo-sphere memes on Arab minds)

Arabic speakers are irrelevant to the goal of impressing Anglo-sphere memes.

People adopt memes because the memes do something for them that they want. See any tourist town.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 29, 2006 07:42 AM

> And since our oil is under their sand, we need infantry. Get the US off petroleum and we can close the Straits of Hormuz and blow them all up with impunity.

It would be much cheaper to simply seize said oil fields and ignore the rest.

I note that White still hasn't figured out that the oil revenues are orders of magnitude larger than the terrorist funding. Since the US purchases are much smaller than the difference, it is absurd to believe that the US stopping to buy would affect terror funding at all.

Moreover, as White still hasn't figured out, other people will happily buy oil that the US doesn't buy, so the revenue drop will be much smaller than any change in US purchases.

White doesn't care about any of these facts. His affection for a gas tax has nothing to do with his bogus arguments for it.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 29, 2006 07:55 AM

That said, just about NO ONE in either political mainstream has a clue about how to run a successful counter insurgency. Too many here would be content to turn Tehran to glass and call it a day.

Thank goodness we have a military who _does_ know how to run a successful counter-insurgency. The pols lay out the goal - the grunts get on with it and do the fighting.

I recall a president who was getting so far down in the weeds he was picking out targets for bombers. In at least that respect we may have learned our Vietnam lesson.

Ask LBJ how well that 'I know how to run a war better than the professionals' thing worked out.

Posted by brian at December 29, 2006 09:57 AM

Is a war with China inevitable, or might there be a realpolitik accommodation? The Chinese don't seem to be out to conquer the world, and are learning that capitalism can work for them. Meanwhile, the U.S. is learning that not every people is cut out for Jeffersonian democracy. Maybe we pull in our horns and acknowledge a Chinese sphere of influence, and they stop fomenting proxy wars against us, and we learn to live with each other.

Posted by lmg at December 29, 2006 11:51 AM

War with the Soviet Union was not inevitible but our preparedness is probally the greatest factor in the fact that war was never fought.

Si vi pacem, parabellum.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 29, 2006 12:49 PM

Here's an interesting report from a News Corp employed reporter with The Times of London. This is the reprint in Rupert's local broadsheet in Oz - not surprisingly called The Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20989411-31477,00.html

This guy claims to have been there and says its probably a case of SNAFU and we should wait for the next developments before cracking the champagne.

Posted by David Flemming at December 29, 2006 05:20 PM

> The Chinese don't seem to be out to conquer the world

Some actual evidence would be nice.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 29, 2006 06:04 PM

its amazing that those who band about the chickenhawk phrase, dont make the connection to Heinlein and STARSHIPTROOPERS.

Posted by Harley at December 30, 2006 07:32 AM

Criticism of the media is fine. Scapegoating them for almost everything that's wrong in Iraq or elsewhere is not. Especially when you let the actual policymakers responsible for various dabacles largely off the hook. This does little for the debate over these matters.

If you won't go to Iraq, Rand, that's perfectly understandable. It's an extremely dangerous place for foreigners, and the death rate among journalists is very high compared with other wars. As long as you're going to sit this out, why don't you give the media over there the benefit of the doubt for doing a tough job? Instead, focus more of your ire on the people with actual power who are implementing the policies over there?

Posted by at December 30, 2006 12:25 PM

Criticism of the media is fine. Scapegoating them for almost everything that's wrong in Iraq or elsewhere is not.

I must have missed the part where I, or anyone else, did that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 30, 2006 01:58 PM

Hey Rand --- The one time you go out and pretend to be a real journalist at some space junket that you didn't want to pay to attend, you end up slagging off the organizers about some problem with your laptop and its wireless connection, and then it turns out to be all wrong. That event described in perfect detail your complete lack of professionalism and credibility. The media and net are awash with opinion. So how about trying some old-fashion fact reporting and leave the stupid comments for the readers to make up. Maybe then you might be then considered a "man of letters" rather than a "man of ignorance".

Posted by The Truth Fairy at December 30, 2006 03:09 PM

...leave the stupid comments for the readers to make up.

Like stuff about falcons? I'm insulted.

Posted by D Anghelone at December 30, 2006 04:18 PM

"The Truth Fairy",

Much of what you saw is true about Rand's reporting at a recent spaceconference. The thing is this: you know the details (his complaints, what he was doing, the resolution of the problem, his embarassment over the situation) because he put them all of his blog for everyone to read. That is called transparency. It is that transparency that gives Rand credibility and why Chickenhawks, who hide behind nom de guerre's, don't have credibility.

Thanks for stopping by and stealing the truth, did you at least leave a quarter to Rand when you left, Truth Fairy.

Posted by Leland at December 30, 2006 05:30 PM

His behavior was appalling and showed that he was no better than those he heaps scorn on each day. So what if he retracted his rants. He should never have carried on the way he did in the first place. If Rand does not want to be a professional reporter and held to the same standards he demands of all other reporters, then he should not turn up at the next space conference in the press room pretending to be anything more than an unpaid blogger looking for a free meal ticket.

Posted by Defanged at December 30, 2006 07:50 PM

"His behavior was appalling and showed that he was no better than those he heaps scorn on each day. "

Hey dumbass, spare us the crocodile tears, we ain't buying it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 31, 2006 11:20 AM

"I must have missed the part where I, or anyone else, did that."

Somehow, I knew you would...

Posted by at January 1, 2007 07:47 PM

"Somehow, I knew you would..."

So you finally admit your error? Commendible! but if you knew you were in error, why did you post it in the first place?

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 5, 2007 09:08 PM

Post a comment