Captain Dave's Rants

Friday, March 28, 2003
( 5:00 PM )
U.S. Citizens Can Learn from Iraq Defense

A number of lessons can be learned from the U.S. attack on Iraq that should reassure U.S. citizens who worry about their liberty and an oppressive government. Although I find it hard to believe the UN could raise the money, the muscle or the balls to send a force to the U.S. to enforce their stupid global laws, the day may come when a liberal U.S. president gives up our national sovereignty and invites them in. This, in fact, is the scenario that many fear may occur one day in the future. And with the European backlash against Bush, such a scenario could be one step closer should a Democrat obtain the presidency in the near future. Should this come to pass, it may fall to the individual citizens to repel the foreign troops, or at least make their visit so expensive they can’t wait to go home.

And as we approach Patriot’s Day, it seems a good time to review the lessons from the war in Iraq.

First, a society where individuals own arms is much more difficult to overthrow or invade than a society that has been disarmed. Armed citizens can effectively slow and harass armies who may well be afraid to enter urban areas. These citizen soldiers have an especially powerful weapon when the oppressor is fighting to win the hearts and minds o the citizenship and does not wish to harm innocent citizens.

Second, a man (or better yet team) armed with a rifle and the skill to use it well can still cause extensive casualties, even against a force that includes Bradley fighting vehicles and other armor. Soft-skin targets like trucks, tankers and Hummers are vulnerable to small arms fire. Even helicopters may be vulnerable, if the rules of engagement prohibit pilots from standing off several miles and firing missiles. There is a window of opportunity in the magic range between 300 and 500 yards in which a .308 battle rifle can be effective, but a M16 using a .223 is of limited effectiveness. Beyond that, snipers engaging targets from half a mile or more away can be effective and degrade the morale and leadership of an enemy force. As we saw in Maryland, it is difficult to find a shooter in an urban area when only one shot is fired.

Third, age-old guerilla tactics remain effective, as does blending in with the civilians and standard tactics such as attacking supply lines. Iraq is a country the size of California. Imagine how long supply lines for a UN occupation force in the U.S. would be.

Now I am not advocating an attack on anyone domestically, but this is something that freedom-loving people who value their liberty should occasionally think about. #

( 5:45 PM )
Sometimes the Germans Just Piss Me Off

I’m not talking about individual Germans, as the ones I’ve met and worked with are usually a friendly lot, hard working, fun and intelligent. No, I’m talking collectively and politcally. And here’s an example.

An article on the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal, entitled “Behind Iraq Stance in Germany: A flood of War Memories,” tells how Germans are harkening back to their experiences in World War II and the “outpouring of memory is …strengthening the German opposition against a threatened war with Iraq.”

The article mentioned allied bombing raids that “obliterated 160 German cities…and killed between 350,000 and 650,000 civilians."

It amazes me that Germany can use their personal suffering in war 60 years ago as an excuse to avoid war today. German citizens only became “victims” of war because they let the Nazi movement consume their country, turning it into a war machine bent on dominating Europe. It is hard to claim the bombing of German cities was unjustified when Hitler first carried the air war to the shores of England, almost bombing them into submission. Bu we don't see the English becomming pacifists. It was Germany, not England, that marched over its borders, invading Poland, France, Norway, et al. If anyone deserved to be bombed, it was the aggressor in this conflict -- Germany.

400,000 American soldiers died and 1.2 million were injured in WWII, many of them in continental Europe where we fought to help stop the German aggression. Yet this has not made us pacifists. We learned the lesson France and Germany have failed to heed, and today we are are intent on stopping dictators before they spread their disease beyond their borders.

It also infuriates me that Germans complain about suffering in WWII without mentioning that they rounded up -- or at least allowed to be rounded up -- and slaughtered millions of innocent Jews, gypsies and other “undesirables.” These innocents suffered far worse than the victims of allied bombings. They were herded into camps and starved, gassed, subjected to medical experiments, used for slave labor and subjected to other inhumane treatment. Maybe Saddam isn’t quite this bad, but his use of gas, secret police, informers and the torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners has disturbing echoes of the Nazi era. And like the Nazi’s, he has already invaded one neighbor and fought bitterly with another. Without intervention from the U.S. and our coalition, he is going to get worse rather than mellow.

When Germans collectively relive their past and the ugly side of war, they should worry less about the horror of war and more about how to prevent the horror of the Nazi era. Imagine Hitler with Anthrax or an atomic bomb. Do you doubt he would use it? Do you think he would be willingly disarmed? Is there any reason to think Saddam will act differently? We should let history be our guide and act now to prevent Saddam from reaching the scale of danger that Hitler represented in 1939. #

( 9:31 AM )
Peace Through War

In the raging debate between the U.S. and Britain with France and Germany over whether or not to invade Iraq, one sometimes forgets that there are millions of Iraqi citizens who are being tortured, raped, murdered and imprisoned by Saddam and his regime. He is oppressing his people, who not only do not live free, but in many cases are not free to live at all. I wonder how they feel about the delay?

An editorial in today’s New York Times made this point clearly and concisely:

But if the antiwar movement dissuades the United States and its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have contributed to the peace of the dead. Saddam Hussein will emerge victorious and ever more defiant. What has been accomplished so far will unravel. Containment is doomed to fail. We cannot forget that despots protected by their own elaborate security apparatus are still able to make decisions.
Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power?

Well said, and I only wish the author has chosen to stop there. Unfortunately, the author, José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, disagrees on how much time Iraq needs to disarm. Despite reviewing a litany of deaths in his family caused by Indonesia’s conflict with East Timor, he asks for more time for inspectors, which is really more time for Saddam to inflict injury and destruction on the people of Iraq. (And now that the inspectors have found a rocket that exceeds the legal limits, Saddam will not even admit that the rocket is in violation, just like he will not admit to having weapons of mass destruction.) I think what we have here is a man who knows what must be done, but just lacks the stones to pull the trigger. The author knows that with some bad guys, the carrot will not work and one must whack them with the stick to get their attention. He just doesn’t want to be the guy holding the stick, and he doesn’t’ want anyone else to swing it until we can say we gave peace a chance.

Well, Iraq has had a chance. Seventeen chances, more accurately. We can safely say that peace did not fail, but Saddam did, and now Iraq will have peace only through war. We must wait no longer. #

( 12:27 AM )
Imagine Being in Saddam's Shoes

You spend billions of dollars - money you had to sneak into the country by smuggling oil through Syria and other illegal practices - to build a bigger, more powerful rocket, and this Swiss fellow comes along and tells you that you have to destroy it, as well as the fuel, manufacturing facility and even test facilities. I mean, had you know that was going to happen, you could have spent all that money buying food you're your starving people.

So, if you ignore the annoying Swiss fellow, your risk the wrath of the UN, which you've done time and time again with nothing but a slap on the wrist. But this time that Texan and that Tony fellow with the pesky accent probably aren't going to let you get away with it. And if you destroy the rockets, well those fellows are likely to attack anyhow, which doesn't quite seem fair. So do you buy a bit of time and make things more uncomfortable for the damn American and his Tony crony, or do you make it a bit more uncomfortable for their soldiers by lobbing rockets at their encampments in Kuwait? A tough choice.

And then there are all those glorious palaces! The workmanship and the splendor proclaim to all that see them that you are a great man. Sure, you could have spent the billions of dollars on improving your country's standard of living, medical services and even feeding the starving children, but a palace is more important than a peasant who's father is probably disloyal. If only there was something you could do to keep the American's and their radar-evading jets from bombing them to smithereens.

It was bad enough when you had to look out for your own countrymen, and even your own relatives, who were trying to kill you. Now there are reportedly specially trained snipers, pilotless aircraft and maybe even those pesky Navy Seals out to get you. Plus, Mossad agents, CIA agents and Northern Iraqi sympathizers. And the price on your head means just about anyone might take a pot shot and walk away a Millionaire.

Yep, it's a Tough Time to be Saddam Hussein. And it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. #

( 5:16 PM )
Countries Supporting War in Iraq have Something in “Common”

I find it quite interesting that those countries that are prominently backing the war on Iraq -- the United States, Great Britain, Australia and Canada -- are those that have legal systems based on the common law doctrine, while most of the governments that oppose it are counties in which their legal system is based on civil law.

What, you may ask, being married by living together for seven years have to do with a war in Iraq? Nothing, of course. The common law I'm talking about is an Anglo/American legal tradition in which the law has evolved from the bottom up, and where history and precedence play a key role. Under common law governments, the courts are primary in developing and establishing laws, and the legislature plays a secondary role. (OK, this is changing here in the U.S., a threat to our constitutional government and a topic, perhaps, for a later post.) Under common law, "the primary role of the state is simply to recognize the private-law order and enforce it: this means recognizing the citizen ideal, private property, freedom of contract, in short, commutative justice." (For more on Commonlaw, go to http://www.commonlawreview.com and read their orientation. This is an informative and enlightening web site I discovered while researching this post that cleverly outlines the threat of civil law and links it to the global push for a world government and anti-Americanism.)

Civil law, by contrast, is all about rules made and enforced by the legislature and "requires an overarching sovereign to dictate the law." Thus, we see much of Western Europe, where civil law rules the day, endorsing a world government through the UN and expressing shock and dismay when someone decides to do an end run.

So, countries that have evolved form the Anglo/American tradition of common law, where people have individual rights and freedoms, see the need to attack Saddam and remove the weapons of mass destruction from his control. But countries where people have no rights and no expectations of rights but those granted to them by the government, are against this.

Can we then draw the conclusion that countries with a common law heritage and tradition are more moral and ethical? Do they have a greater sense of what is right and wrong? I think that we must draw this conclusion. And we must also acknowledge that these countries, recognizing a wrong, are more willing to right the wrong rather than ignoring it. So from this I cannot help but draw the conclusion that a country who's laws are not based on fundamental Christian values, on "God-given" rights, on traditional and historical precedence, are inherently weak. Civil laws may change from administration to administration, but common law evolves very slowly. This gives countries based on it faith in their system and a strength and fortitude lacking elsewhere.

Leaving the world stage for a moment, if we look within our own United States, we see that so called "conservative justices," political doublespeak for judges who want to enforce the law according to the constitution rather than re-interpreting it to fit another agenda, are actually the judges that are adhering to our common law tradition. They are making sound legal decisions on precedent, not only the precedent of the 226 years since we declared our independence, but going back centuries prior. We should support these jurors and encourage our senators to vote for them. #

( 10:00 PM )
Captain Dave's War Plan

More evidence today that Bush is committed to the war against Iraq and is moving forward with or without the UN. And what I think is interesting is that news is leaking out that they are looking at mid-March. Why delay the inevitable?

But if I were in charge, here's what I would try to do:

First, I would to lead everyone to believe the war would start around mid March. I'd tell the inspectors to be prepared to clear out on the 14th. I would have certain people in the Pentagon leak hints to the media. I would even tell the troops on the ground that it's the 15th. Then I'd go off to Camp David on the first of March.

But this would all be misdirection. On March 2, teams of Special Forces and Rangers would infiltrate and take over several key sites in the desert. The Airborne would drop into key strategic targets we want to protect, such as oil fields, or areas we wish to strike or take over, such as Saddam's military encampment to the North of Baghdad, where he is expect to hide out once the war starts. I would also have Navy Seals board the three mystery ships and take them over and examining their cargoes. I would have the Marines take over an airfield and start flying troops and armor into there to use it as an advanced outpost within Iraq. Our helicopters would scour the area, destroying tanks, armor, scuds, and any troops that showed resistance.

Within an hour or two after are troops are all on the ground, just when Saddam starts to realize something is going wrong, I would start the mother of all bombing campaigns, using cruise missiles and every available plain in the area. Under the cover of the bombing, I would also drop teams into or near Baghdad to infiltrate, create confusion and disruption, snipe at key targets and look for underground bunkers.

By sunrise, our heavy armored divisions would have moved into Iraq, with opposition melting away in front of them. The enemy expects a week or so of bombings before the land invasion, so we'd catch them off guard in more ways than one. A10s and helicopters would hunt enemy armor, and destroy it where it stood, instead of chasing it back to Baghdad. The C130 gun ships would rain fire down on enemy barracks and positions with much greater devastation than even laser-guided bombs.

By the time people on the East Coast were turning on their TVs for the morning traffic and weather, they'll find out that at worst, we've practically taken over Iraq. At best, they'll be seeing pictures of hidden bunkers or ships filled with biological and chemical weapons. The appeasers at the UN who have been saying the inspections work would be faced with evidence that Saddam was too smart, and too accomplished at hiding his weapons and that the inspections did not work. Bush and company could gloat as countries that opposed us find themselves in a position of either supporting an outlaw regime or falling into line and thanking the U.S. for once again protecting the world and having balls to do what no other country could bring itself to do.

OK, so maybe it's pure fantasy. But I hope the military planners don't forget that surprise can be achieved in many ways. I think it's time to trick Saddam instead of letting him pull the wool over the world's eyes another time. And by sweeping into the country, taking a few key spots, leapfrogging his defenses and finding damning evidence in bunkers or on the boats, we can turn world opinion around. Remember, Desert Storm II doesn't have to be a replay of Desert Storm I. #

( 9:58 PM )
Screw Turkey

The U.S. has been incredibly helpful to Turkey in numerous ways, not the least of which is working aggressively to help them join the European Union. In general, Europeans look down on Turkey, and Turks are given menial jobs in countries like Germany. But we've been their friend, their supporter and given them credibility.

I hope the next time the knock on our door they find it slammed in their face. Maybe the cold shoulder will help them realize that they need us more than we need them. And it can be an object lesson for other countries. They can cooperate and benefit -- as Pakistan did -- or fail to cooperate and suffer, as Turkey will do. We just hope that Turkey has a "regime change" of its own in their next election. #

( 5:34 PM )
We’re Baaack…

The surge of back-logged orders has been reduced and we’re now dealing with a more manageable number. Hopefully this will allow more time for frequent Blog posts. We’ve made a good start today. #

( 5:32 PM )
You Need Alternatives to the Mainstream Media

Let’s talk about the media and how far they have fallen. At one time, being a newspaper reporter was a noble pursuit. Newspapers helped the American Revolution gather speed. Patriots using moveable lead type helped tell the other side of the story. But today, the mainstream media tend to report only what our enemies wish us to hear.

Perhaps reporters today are too lazy to actually research a story. After all, why dig for the hidden story when it is all laid out for you in carefully planned and executed press conferences? Perhaps that is why so many stories are the same in newspapers around the world. The fact is, very few daily newspapers have the staff or financial resources to report on national or international news, so they buy it from wire services, where one worldview is broadcast onto the front page and local TV news around the country

Any American who wishes to know what is really going on should count on alternative news sources. While the BBC often gives a slightly different perspective, the real sources for news about Iraq, Al Qeada and unrest is the Debka File. If you want the real story about what is going on in the Middle East, as well as a careful analysis of what this news means, it is hard to beat the experts at the Debka File.

For example, right now you can read about the Iraqi and Al Qeada plans to fight American forces and how these two anti-American forces have joined together to blow up oil fields.

You can also read that Bush has made up his mind to launch military action and will no longer stall the war effort.

The Drudge Report and WorldNet Daily should not be ignored either. Although more often compendiums of news published elsewhere, these outlets nevertheless help ensure you catch details you might miss elsewhere.

Bookmark these sites and visit them frequently. Then make up your own mind.

#

( 5:30 PM )
The UN vs. Our Sovereignty

The New York Times had an interesting News Analysis today on why the European countries like to work through the UN and why we do not.

“European governments believe in the United Nations as the ‘center of the world order’ and the American Government, especially the current American government, tends to be hostile to that idea.”

It also states that Kofi Anan told the European foreign ministers and heads of state that “the united nations was the only source of legitimacy for the use of force in the world.”

What’s interesting is not the conclusion that the article draws, but that this kind of thinking is not only accepted but also endorsed by so many others. Perhaps they, and I include many Democratic leaders such as Hillary Clinton, forget that the United States is a sovereign nation. It can and will decide when and how it uses force. It does not answer to a higher authority or recognize a world government. We have a constitution that is far superior to that of the United Nations charter, and we will not let it be subverted by a world body, and especially not one staffed with compromise-prone, avoiders and appeasers. It is exactly this policy of appeasement and failure to address a problem while it is small and controllable that led to Hitler’s domination of Europe and World War II.

While it is nice to have our actions endorsed and supported by a body of other countries, it is not necessary. I think we have given the UN its chance, and it is no longer the time for niceties.

If we feel Saddam is a serious threat, we should go in there tomorrow and make him less of a threat. We should send seal teams to take over the three “mystery ships” sailing around, reportedly loaded with Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. We should send Special Forces into his desserts to seek out and kill Al Qeada operatives that are there planning sabotage. We should strike at the hidden areas where we believe he has weapons of mass destruction hidden in subterranean lairs, and we should launch pre-emptive strikes at the rocket launches he is moving south.

And if countries like France and Germany don’t want to participate, then that is their choice, and by their actions they are precluding themselves from the chance to participate afterwards in the rebuilding of Iraq. If countries like Turkey find it politically inexpedient to base U.S. troops there, then they should not expect to reap the rewards.

In truth, A further UN endorsement of our actions offers us nothing more than political cover for our allies. #

( 5:27 PM )
Third World Lacks Credibility in Pushing For Peace

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of other nations telling the U.S. that we should opt for peace instead of war with Iraq.

Many of the governments that are calling on us to give Iraq more time are not democracies. Many of them have used brutal tactics to suppress the opposition party and keep people in line. Some of them have large populations of people who have “disappeared.” And most of them are not targets of terrorism or will ever face weapons of mass destruction.

So why does their opinion count? Why should we listen to some third-world African country that cannot manage their own internal affairs, which cannot feed their citizens or provide medical care? Does a South American country with runaway inflation and people living in cardboard shantytowns really have a valid opinion on how we should protect our citizens? Does a former member of the Soviet Union who’s leading occupation is shepherd really have anything to say that should affect us on the global level?

The sad truth is that the U.S. accounts for something more than a third of the world’s economic output, and probably 60 percent of the world’s creativity. We are strong, freedom-loving, right-thinking country that does not tolerate totalitarian governments run by cruel dictators. We have become the sole super power because our approach works. It has a 225-year proven track records, something no other country can claim. We don’t ask other countries how to run our businesses. We don’t let them tell us how to develop medicines to treat their sick, or raise wheat to feed their hungry. So why do they think they should have an input on how we protect our citizens from an overseas threat?

Not only is the U.S. the world’s richest nation, we spread the wealth. We provide food aid, medical aid, military aid, low-interest loans, and intellectual capital. Maybe we should start spending those funds more on the taxpayers who raised them and less on an ungrateful world.

Many of the countries that are criticizing the United States are the very countries that benefit from the U.S. largess, from our economic aid, from our charitable contributions, from our technology and from our role as world cop. If they are biting the hand that feeds them, maybe we should withdraw that hand and see how quickly they change their tune. I think that without the U.S.’s influence and power, the world would be a conglomerate of petty infighting amongst countries, as we have already seen at the UN.

The U.S. was at one time the world’s leading super power. We rode to the rescue of our allies in World War I and World War II. After WWII, we helped keep peace in the world as a counterbalance to the expanding communist threat. Our soldiers, our bombs and our missiles not only kept Western Europe safe -- usually without firing a shot -- they also freed Eastern Europe from the yoke of communism, secret police and oppressive central governments. Now we have turned our attentions South, to the Middle East, and hope to be the saviors of another repressed people, while at the same time protecting our populace and making he world a safer place.

We did not let the Axis stop us in WWII. We did not let Russia and the Warsaw Pact stop us in the Cold War. Does a collection of tired “Old Europe” counties and the underclass of the third world really think they can sway us now? #

( 12:08 AM )
Terror Warning Recedes?

It seems that the Bush administration is dialing back the terrorist warning a bit. But are we really any safer this week than we were last? Or were we really in any more danger last week than we have been these past months? I doubt it. The threat of terrorism is ever present, although there are certainly times when it is more likely than others, and the recent holiday may indeed have been on such time. Did our heightened awareness cause the terrorist to rethink their plans? If so, they will simply wait until we drop or guard. My expectation is that it will blossom when we attack Iraq.

Web site traffic here on Captain Dave's increased to seven times its average, peaking last Wednesday. We're still running several times our normal volume, but its dropped down a bit and prices for survival gear on auction sites are dropping as well. So apparently Americans aren't as worried today as they were early last week. On one hand, we can be glad that people have stopped panicking, but on the other hand, we have to wonder if their five days of panic actually made anyone safer. Will they change their habits? Will they take a look at their surroundings in a new light? Will they take steps to become self-sufficient? Or will they simply grimace when they see their credit card bill or the box of duct tape tucked away in their closet?

Hopefully, someone woke up this past week and decided that they didn't like feeling scared and unprepared. Maybe they used this opportunity to read up on what they could do. Perhaps they will change their life, even if only a little at a time, to become more self sufficient, better able to protect themselves and more aware or their surroundings. If a few people adopt a more self-reliant mindset each time, we may actually be making some progress. #

( 11:32 PM )
Useful Chemical Weapon Antidote Information

It's not often that you see a doctor actually promote some realistic ways to treat or prevent injuries from chemical and nuclear weapons. But this site has some interesting information that goes beyond the standard "tape plastic on your windows" response. #

( 11:31 PM )
What a Weekend!

Whew! Just finished an incredibly busy weekend of processing orders, packing boxes and printing UPS labels. Every gas mask, chemical suit, and similar items that were ordered Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday are pack and ready for UPS. Now we just have to wait and hope the UPS man can get through the snow and ice tomorrow! Another delivery of masks is expected, and then we'll start the process all over again on Tuesday. We hope to be caught up by the end of the week.
#

E-mail Captain Dave with suggestions, feedback and comments