The Other Sound of Freedom

I was up at 4am yesterday morning after sleeping most of the night in my chair watching Northern Exposure. I noticed after a bit that something seemed to be thumping around downstairs in the garage. I asked Sheila of the super sensitive ears if she heard it too and she confirmed that I was indeed hearing a regular thumping noise - two thumps every two or three minutes. It was the regularity of the noise that troubled me.

I got up and went out on the catwalk between our garage apartment and the landlord's house. In about a minute I heard the thumping sound again only this time it was clearly coming from outside. A couple of more double thumps and I could tell it was coming from the west of us. I've only heard that kind of sound coming from the direction of Ft. Lewis once before since we moved up here to Washington from Texas. Then, I thought it was a thunderstorm, something rare in this region. It wasn't a thunderstorm then. Nor was it now.

It was early morning gunnery practice. I confirmed it with a retired Army officer I know. It seems that the base conducts firing drills and maneuvers along with a lot of planes and helicopters flying around, which I've also noticed over the past week. My Army friend told me the military tends to flex its muscles quite loudly when things get unsettled here in the States. Apparently, they do it to impress the Chinese and Russian (and now Iranian) spies that if they are thinking of getting frisky during this period of unrest, they should think again. The military is warming up just in case they mistake some riots, flag-burning, resignations of political candidates and attempted assassinations as a sign of weakness. 

Japan and Germany made that mistake in World War II. Then we were still in the depression, half the country was flirting with communism it seemed, the president was in a wheelchair, and there were some serious anti-war protests going on. So the Axis decided to poke the bear and see what happens. 

When you poke the back end of the bear, you dang well better have a plan for dealing with his teeth and claws. And it better be one heck of a plan, because he's a huge bear and if you poke him, he's going to turn on you and reduce you to a bloody pile in short order. It was true then and though the tyrants of the world may think we're on the brink of a civil war and vulnerable, they obviously weren't paying attention in history class. 

Come after us, and they'll find us united in a heartbeat. Watch our military grow as enlistments explode. Watch our industry ramp up overnight. And see us lose patience with y'all's nonsense and come together in a breath-taking hurry.

Can't say they weren't warned. It's amazing how short politicians' memories, especially those that didn't grow up in the land of the free and home of the brave. Meanwhile, we're having howitzer practice just down the road at the break of dawn and I'm going to sleep like a baby.

Just sayin'

© 2024 by Tom King

Making Peace With Wolves - An Aesop Fable

Creative Commons: Some rights reserved by Harlequeen

“WHY SHOULD there always be this fear and slaughter between us?” said the Wolves to the Sheep. “Those evil-disposed Dogs have much to answer for. They always bark whenever we approach you and attack us before we have done any harm. If you would only dismiss them from your heels, there might soon be treaties of peace and reconciliation between us.” The Sheep, poor silly creatures, were easily beguiled and dismissed the Dogs, whereupon the Wolves destroyed the unguarded flock at their own pleasure.

 - Aesop

 Creative Commons: Some rights reserved by tonynetone

Aesop understood this principle more than 2.600 years ago and yet apparently highly educated politicians still want to send away the dogs and trust in the promises of wolves. Aesop told a second story (below*) with the same theme. He must have thought it important to tell the story twice.

 - Tom

Creative Commons: Some rights reserved by slightly everything

 * A HORSE SOLDIER took the utmost pains with his charger. As long as the war lasted, he looked upon him as his fellow-helper in all emergencies and fed him carefully with hay and corn. But when the war was over, he only allowed him chaff to eat and made him carry heavy loads of wood, subjecting him to much slavish drudgery and ill-treatment. War was again proclaimed, however, and when the trumpet summoned him to his standard, the Soldier put on his charger its military trappings, and mounted, being clad in his heavy coat of mail. The Horse fell down straightway under the weight, no longer equal to the burden, and said to his master, “You must now go to the war on foot, for you have transformed me from a Horse into an Ass; and how can you expect that I can again turn in a moment from an Ass to a Horse?”  

- Aesop

To Drill or Not to Drill - Why Aren't They Drilling?

Somewhere in the Pentagon, enshrined in some little folder somewhere you can bet there is a security assessment that lays out a long list of reasons why we ought not to drill the vast oil reserves under our own soil. For a long time, presidents, Democrat or Republican have discouraged drilling homeland oil reserves. We have grown steadily more dependent on foreign oil sources. 

President Bush always said, presidents make decisions based on information that most Americans do not know and that events, themselves, limit what decisions any president makes.  You'll notice, for instance, that President Obama hasn't pushed forward some of his more radical foreign policy pronouncements since his election, drawing criticism from his own supporters for failing to deliver on promises like the one he made to shut down Gitmo, for instance.

I can think of a couple of things which might slow a president's desires to tap U.S. homeland oil reserves. Just guessing, but perhaps that little folder could lay out the threat assessment something like this.

1. The world's population is growing rapidly. 
2. Nuclear weapons continue to proliferate.
3. Foreign oil reserves will inevitably run out some day.  When that happens, third world countries will fall into chaos. Some of those possess nukes.
4. When that happens, someone will have to step up to provide police and relief support.  It is likely that the only country with the military muscle to do that is the United States.
5. In order for the U.S. to maintain some semblance of order worldwide, it will need energy and part of that energy plan will absolutely include oil as one of its elements. 
6. Therefore, the United States needs to hold onto large oil reserves that can be tapped once the rest of the world runs out.

Americans, themselves, would probably rather be energy independent and have lower gas prices than think long term about keeping the rest of the world from going up in flames.  The generals who create such strategic plans know that part of those flames could be nuclear unless someone takes decisive action..

Personally, I think our country's leaders both Democrat and Republican are working roughly toward the same thing so far as our military, energy and foreign policy is concerned. I think the military-industrial complex is planning to use up the energy reserves of the rest of the world first before we tap our own. When that happens, our government wants to be the last one in an oil-starved world standing on an underground lake of crude. That would put us in the catbird seat and let's face it - that's exactly where governments want to be. Besides it could be argued that such a course would be in the best interest of the American people.

I'm not betting we'll get the go-ahead to drill for oil in our own oil fields until we've sucked up the last drop left out there in the rest of the world.  I'm not the first to predict that. I'm just not sure the motivation is entirely about greedy oil profits.

Personally, I think Jesus will come before that.  Let's face it, it's a stupid idea to exploit our fellow man in that way. It would be nice if we had an honest president who would make decisions because they are right and not because they are expedient, but then president's aren't allowed to make decisions based on guesses about when Christ is coming. 

The upshot is, I don't think attempts to pass legislation to open up drilling in US oil reserves will be successful any time soon whoever's in power. When such legislation does pass, it will likely signal the beginning of very bad times ahead in the world.

Just one man's opinion.

Tom King 

Should We Fear Bin Laden as a Martyr?

There has been a lot of hand wringing since last night's announcement that Navy Seals had stamped "Paid" to Osama Bin Laden's account in a daring raid on his palatial million dollar home in Pakistan. Many pundits fear a wave of righteous outrage from Muslims and a wave of violence against us. After all, we well remember our own outrage and anger following the martyrdom of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.  The question is, will this unite the Muslim world against us.

T.E. Lawrence (yes, THAT Lawrence), in his book "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom", Lawrence points out that the Arab culture, indeed that of most of the middle-east is a tribal culture centered around strong-man leaders. Americans do not always appreciate how that dynamic works in the Middle-East. We often project our own values and beliefs upon the cultures of Persia and Arabia and Asia. It has, in the past, led to grave mistakes in dealing with those nations at whose base those cultures inform diplomatic and military behavior.  We are not alone in misjudging other cultures. They also fail to understand us because they see America through the prism of their own culture.

Japan made that mistake in WWII. They assumed (being a strong-man culture) that because Americans loved peace that we were cowards and that a hard knock would discourage us and lead us to capitulate. Hitler arrogantly assumed (as a strong man in a strong man culture) assumed we would join the strong side or at the very least stay out of it. Only Admiral Yamamoto, who understood Americans better than his colleagues, realized the mistake Japan had made when he said, "We have wakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."  Bin Laden really thought that 9/11 would cause America to flee the Middle-East in terror of his self-proclaimed holy war. Imagine his shock when he was rousted out of his cave!

We continually confuse our enemies by our ferocity in battle and by our magnanimity in the aftermath toward our defeated foes. America responds to the martyrdom of our own with stubborn, fierce and overwhelming force. Next to the kind of all-out war America wages when it is angered, jihad is an anemic temper tantrum!

When a middle-eastern strong man is brought down, his followers tend to fade into the woodwork until another strong man comes along. Osama Bin Laden was a figurehead, yes, but as long as he remained alive, ordering attacks, however insignificant, against America, he was a unifying figure. His ignominious death will weaken Al-Quaeda.

Someone compared Al-Quaeda to a Hydra, the mythical multi-headed beast of Greek mythology that would sprout two heads for every one you cut off.  This is not a perfect analogy. In strong man cultures, the lopping off the primary head does result in the rise of others, however, it also sets off a struggle for pre-eminence among the heads, often resulting in one head biting off the other.  The best way to combat such a system is to keep lopping off the primary head, leaving the little heads to fight among themselves for position.  This spreads confusion and chaos among the followers who tend to follow the man even more than the cause, however, loudly they proclaim their loyalty to the cause. Lopping off the primary head is a very effective technique for fighting strong-man cultures. There will inevitably be a power struggle in Al-Quaeda for pre-eminence. If we go after the next strong man, we will soon have the new strong man in hiding and reduced in effectiveness. At the same time the strong man will bet afraid to let another become too powerful lest that lieutenant replace the strong man.

With American armies or even governments, the followers will continue to come after you with or without the leader because in American culture, it is the cause that is pre-eminent and not the leader. In times of peace we may fight ad nauseum among ourselves, but make us angry, attack us and give us a cause to focus on, and we come after you relentlessly.

We are a very different people from those with whom we contend in the Middle-East. When we kill a hated enemy, we prepare his body for burial according to his religious beliefs and bury him in Muslim fashion with respect.  When they kill our people, they hang their bodies from bridges. When our soldiers mistreat prisoners, they are prosecuted. When their mistreat prisoners, it is posted on the Internet.  We are an honorable people. Our enemies sense of honor is very different. We see it with Al-Quaeda. We saw it with how the Japanese behaved toward prisoners in WWII.  Both cultures have a highly developed sense of honor, but it is very different from ours. We must take it into account.

Bin Laden's "martyrdom", while it may inspire some short term reaction among Bin Laden's admirers, it will more likely dishearten them than anything. An Arab writer in Newsweek almost ten years ago, suggested that if America wanted to win friends in the Middle-East, it needed to win.  Winning is the only thing Arabs respect. Conciliation and concession are inevitably seen as week.

The extermination of Osama Bin Laden is a big one in the "W" column for the U.S.. If we move from strength to strength we win friends. Remember that in the wake of the U.S. defeat of Saddam Hussein, hundreds of Iraqi newborn boys were named George Bush. The instinct to revere strength is instinctive in that culture.

If President Obama continues his strong posture in the Middle-East in the wake of Bin Laden's elemination, even if he only does it to win re-election, that will be a good thing. It may buy us time to win friends there. It may open a window for Christians in that region to win a brief respite. Who knows?

I think mainstream Arabs and Persians will see Osama Bin Laden, not so much as a martyr, but as a loser, grown weak and hiding in his million dollar mansion, caught lounging in his waterbed by the relentless special operations forces of the United States of America.

While it is inappropriate for a Christian to rejoice in the death of any man, we may rejoice that we have silenced the voice that ordered so many half starved Arab boys and girls to strap explosives around their thin waists and to blow themselves up in peaceful marketplaces, killing people who never did them any harm. An evil is gone from the world. Other evil men will rise to take his place, that is certain, but America is watching and the Joint Special Operations Command stands ready.

Hooah!


Tom King
 Tyler, TX

Apologizing for the Bomb

On the 65^th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by American atomic bombs, the American left is again calling for an official apology from the United States for dropping the bombs. They argue that Japan was fundamentally defeated and that we were doing fine with conventional air strikes. 

It must be wonderful to sit on Mt. Olympus and look back and judge your parents and grandparents. Anyone who believes we could have just downed tools and gone home, leaving Japan intact and everything would have been peaceful is living in a fantasy. You have to ignore vast amounts of information available to us about the Japanese leaderships mindset.  Someone found something in the Japanese archives that talked about surrender.  Nobody at the time said anything to us about surrendering.  All we heard were threats to fight ditch by ditch. The Japanese military were practically training suicide canoers and bicyclists. Everything that could have been used as a weapon was being put in the hands of the Japanese populace. They were being told we would eat their children if they didn't fight and die to the last man, woman and child.  We expected to lose more than a million soldiers in an invasion of the home islands.

So why didn't we just go away and leave them alone if they were "defeated"?

Remember who it was we were fighting at the time.  These guys anticipated Al Quaeda by 57 years, equipping suicide bomber warplanes with explosives to fly into targets in 1944. They invented the suicide attack.  They even built planes especially for suicide missions and named them after flowers. They were at the time of the Hiroshima attack, training women, children and old people to drive boats and cars and to carry bombs against American forces. I know bullies.  If you whip them only slightly, they come back later to get even. We'd still be fighting to this day, only it would be a steady rain of suicide bombers and guerrila attacks.

I would argue that an almost supernatural bombing attack such as the one at Hiroshima and demonstrating we could do it again if we wanted at Nagasaki was what destroyed the military leadership’s hold on the people.  Even then, a group tried to prevent the emperor from invoking “The Voice of the Crane”, the radio broadcast he made telling the Japanese people to surrender. 

The samurai warrior ethic allowed for giving your life to some purpose, but with the atomic bomb, the Japanese warriors faced the horrifying possibility of being annihilated where they stood with no chance to do anything to their enemy. Their ethos did allow them to surrender when it became clear that fighting was futile – they wouldn’t even be able to take any of their enemies with them.

The atomic bomb arguably saved millions of American and Japanese lives and led to 65 years of peace between out nations. It is only now, when we are busily formally abandoning our position of strength, that a new enemy, just as intractable, just as determined has risen against us. We could have ended our war with fanatical Islam and brought relative peace to the region by doing the same thing we did to the Japanese. We cannot, of course.  While nuking a couple of minor holy cities and threatening Mecca might have calmed things down, we will never do that. We have seen the consequences and whether it would work or not, we cannot bring ourselves to use nuclear weapons again. Especially not if our nation remains militarily strong.

If, however, we gut our military in the name of showing our enemies they mean them no harm, I believe we increase the nuclear threat a thousandfold.  Here’s why:

1. Our enemies see weakness as an opportunity.  And they are enemies. They do not want to make peace with us. They want to destroy and replace us. They mistake America’s longing for peace as a lack of moral will. 
2. We, as a people, don’t understand people like that because we have lived so long without war in our own land. We always try to put down our weapons after a war. We always have to pick them up again because people who live with constant war want what we have in this country—PEACE, Prosperity and Plenty. Because they have always lived in lands where the strong take from the weak, it’s the only way they know to get what we have.  They have to take it.
3. Nuclear weapons offer virtually the only way for a handful of people to sacrifice their lives to accomplish what we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki - victory! If they wish to make the mighty United States surrender, they MUST attack with overwhelming force.  Two bombs would do it.  One to strike fear; two to show they can repeat it when they like. It’s the only way for a third world power to conquer and conquering is what they intend.  We have deluded ourselves about what the atomic bombs and Hiroshima and Nagasaki accomplished.  Al Quaeda, the Taliban and Iran have no such delusions.
4. Fanatic Muslims believe all infidels must be subdued and Islam made the supreme law of the world so that their messiah can make his appearance. This requires unrelenting jihad against all infidels.  If you are attacking the whole world, it’s like taking on a group on the playground.  The way to do it is to take down the biggest guy first in order to intimidate the rest.  As one Arab commentator wrote, the only thing the Arab culture respects is strength.  Because the U.S. is running around the world bowing and apologizing, we have signaled to these enemies that we are growing weak and vulnerable.
5. We do not have the will to do what needs to be done to remove the nuclear weapons-making capacity of countries like Iran. We think they will be bound by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.  At least we did believe that till the President announced we would not retaliate with nukes if we were attacked by a non-nuclear state.  This muddies the waters sufficiently to give terrorists the edge they need.  If they detonate nukes against us, because of our pledge we will not be able to return the favor, even if the terrorists are known so long as there is no “clear” connecting between them and the government of the country where they are hiding.  We’ve thrown off a piece of our armor and painted a big target round the hole. 
6. Finally, I think we might be the ones to start the nuclear holocaust. If you attack people who fear and loathe war, suddenly and without mercy, those fearful people will reach out and grasp the first tool that comes to hand and strike back without mercy.  American liberal leaders have shown a penchant for getting even with their foes. They are not gentlemanly losers. If nuclear weapons go off in American cities it will frighten the wits out of a "liberal" government. I believe that a peace-loving, diplomacy first, free love, elitist president will squeal like a little girl and punch the launch button without another thought - high moral tone notwithstanding.  Only a strong man has the courage to carefully think things through before reacting when he is under fire.

I’d hate to see us apologize at this point. It won’t improve our relations with Japan and it will make us look even more weak to those who have adopted the same kinds of tactics that were used against us in World War II – a big sneak attack, suicide bombers, suicide attacks, wholesale torture and murder of captives to break our will to fight and the use of noncombatant civilians as shields to protect war making resources, weapons and facilities.  It’s the same thing all over again.

Last time we beheaded the beast with a one, two stroke.  That won’t happen again.  We saw the results and we’re far too decent a people to ever do that again. The world wouldn’t stand for it and besides, we don’t want to start a nuclear holocaust.  Our fanatical enemies do not share our scruples. Victory and the coming of the messiah is all they care about. Victory is everything. Life is cheap to the fanatic.

Remember, they get all those virgins if they die taking out the infidels. If they die to no purpose, however, the dynamic changes. Nobody wants to die for nothing. It would take the wind out of the terrorist community to face that terrifying fate.  But Americans are too decent a people to use the only tool the fanatics really fear against them – even to save ourselves.

The Japanese and people from the middle east are not bad people.  They did have (and in the middle east still do have) have some really awful leaders though. My comments are only about those who would use an atomic bomb willingly if they just had one. 

All I can say is Jesus better get here soon, if he's going to fetch us out before the big one goes off.  Even if the Son of God comes right now, He’s liable to need some kind of nuclear shielding when he passes over Iran. The bad guys will not take kindly to their mythology being challenged.  They'll probably do a lot of that shooting up in the air stuff as the cloud passes over.

Tom