Friday, April 28, 2006

The Incompetent War!

If ever there was an admission of failure by the Bush Administration, then this is it! The war being waged against the United States and the rest of the West is now called ‘The Long War’! It should never have been allowed to come to this.

The US is doing Saudi Arabia’s dirty work for it! Why? Because GWB and his administration have been too timid to wage the war as it should have been waged: with clear thinking, sound strategy, courage, fortitude and resolve! And with the determination to win at all costs!

The day after 9/11, the Saudis should have been put in the hot seat. They should have been told that it was their responsibility to track down Osama bin Laden and his henchmen, not ours, i.e. not the US’s! Further, they should have been put on notice: The US’s support for the régime is dependent on their co-operation to find these savages.

Why on earth should the US foot the bill of tracking down these savages anyway? Has the West gone mad? After 9/11, so much was made of the fact that the US was not at war with Islam. The fact of the matter is clear though: Islam was, and still is, at war with the West. The West shouldn’t have allowed the King of Saudi Arabia – who is, after all the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques, and therefore the supposed head of the faith – to get away with hiding behind a smokescreen. They should have been told: Find these people, or else!

George W Bush has been making excuses for Islam. This, we all know. He has come out with ridiculous statements about the loving and kind nature of Islam, statements which are so obviously false. In short, he has placed the West on the defensive. What he should have done is place the West on the offensive by placing the Saudis on the defensive. No war was ever won on the defensive. And this war will be no different. We will not win it this way. Be sure of that!

The Saudi régime depends on the US for its continued existence. The rulers should have been told that if they expect the US (and the rest of the West) to keep on propping it up, then they had better track OBL & Co. down forthwith. If their dynasty would have been put on the line like that, then they would have pulled out all the stops to track down and find the people who are now wreaking havoc with the West.

Political leaders the West over are blinded by oil. Their thinking is therefore muddled. The money being made in the West by the top echelons – and being made often in a corrupt manner – means that the West has been locked into this protracted war. As the saying goes: Our leaders are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. But it won’t work. The result of this protracted war might well bankrupt the States. That, by the way, has always been a stated aim of OBL. The US is playing into his hands!

Why should the Americans allow themselves to be bankrupted like this? Why not let the Saudis, with all their new riches from oil do the spending? They wish to be propped up; so let them pay for it. Why should the American taxpayer foot the bill? And why, indeed, should the taxpayers in the rest of the West foot the policing bills that all this Islamic terrorism is creating? This is ludicrous!

The fact is, however, that Bush and his administration, and the governments of other Western countries, are running scared of Islam. No war will ever be won that way! Name me a war that was ever won when fought from a timid position!

The Saudi régime should be made to feel scared, not Bush and his administration. The royal family of Saudi Arabia would have a great deal to lose if the US suddenly withdrew its support for their régime. For the Saudi royals know that their régime is deeply unpopular at home. The country is, after all, being run like a private family business, with the royals taking a healthy cut of all the contracts going into the country.

I remember well the time when the then leader of Romania, Nicolai Ceauscescu, was heavily criticized for running that country as a private business. It had made the man extremely rich, and, rightly, it was thought to be malpractice on his part, as well it should have been. But for some inexplicable reason, when it comes to the oil-rich kings, princes and sheiks of the Gulf, the practise is thought to be acceptable, even when the average Saudi is kept very short of money! How strange! And how hypocritical our Western leaders can be when big oil and armaments deals are at stake!

It goes without saying that we need to get the better of this jihad being waged against us. We need to crush it before it crushes us! But as things stand at the moment, we are not going to be able to do that. This is why our strategy needs to be changed, and changed rather quickly, before too much more serious damage is done to Western economies. In short, we need to place the unpopular Saudi royal family on the defensive, we need to put them on the spot, we need to make them take the initiative, we need to make them fight this war for us.

It is not for Bush and Blair to talk about Osama bin Laden as being a renegade who doesn’t speak for his faith. Let the Saudis do the talking! If they consider him (and his cronies) to be renegades, then it should be up to them to find them and punish them.

We need to start fighting this war against the jihad as a real war, for a real war it most certainly is. The kid gloves need to be taken off. If we don’t start fighting this real war soon, instead of this phony war we are engaged in, we will fail; and the fate of the West will be sealed. As things stand, the war we are now waging would be more accurately called ‘The Incompetent War’! For incompetent it indeed is!

©Mark Alexander


Dag said...

Nice work, as always, Mark.

The question is raised, but the question needs some answers: how do we effect change in the course of our war as directed by our governments? I again suggest direct action on the part of the people, that the people take charge of government rather than continuing to accept the incompetent baby-sitting of modern governance.

In America we still have a voter-based democracy. People can still elect representatives to office who will act in general accord with the majority of their constituents and compromise with other representatives for the balanced good of the nation's interests. We sitll have a rule of legitimate law, providing for the demands of the majority without trampling the rights of minorities. Overall, it's the best functioning governance on Earth. And so what?

I argue again, as always, that we must act within the bounds of the legitimate law, but there are numerous ways in which we can do so while still applying unbearable pressure to our governments. Our politicians are our representatives, and we must make it known to them that we have demands for wich they are accountable.

How do we make our politicians make the Saudis move? We make our politicians move even right out of office and into the soup kitchen if we must. We do that by running our own people and getting them elected to public office.

We can begin that process of electing our own by holding community-based meetings of like-minded people. It's what we do here in Canada each week. In time we will be a political force. We'll gain momentum. We will, one must expect, take control of our governments.

I think it pays us to forget such out-worn labels as Left and Right, liberal and conservative, progressive and reactionary. There are those of us fighting for the continuation of Western Modernity and those who struggle even harder to bring about a neo-feudalism, a return to the Middle Ages in an age of televison. It's time for a revolution again, and yes, I have no problem with oiling the chopper to make it come about.

Ours is a revolutionary Modernity in the struggle against primitivism and philobarbarism. The gnostic elites infantalise the people, and it's up to us to send them packing-crates.

I urge us all to form the modern likes of Jacobin Clubs. We can use those to beat some sense into our politicians or to pound down the lids and replace those people with true citizens of worth. It begins with you and yours. This struggle agianst primitivism and neo-feudalism requires our bodies in motion.

We must organise among ourselves and make this revolution in our world to take power from those who would otherwise destroy us by ineptitude, greed, or outright stupidity.

If we do nothing, we deserve nothing, but instead, by doing nothing we'll get sharia.

Mark said...

Thank you, Dag.

While reading your comment, I was particularly moved when I read the following:

If we do nothing, we deserve nothing, but instead, by doing nothing we'll get sharia.

How true those words are!

George Mason said...


I agree that this piece by Mark is terribly good. The questions you raise cut to the core of our problems: How to raise enough of the citizenry to the level of another revolution. [And not necessarily any bloody revolution, either--but one that shifts ideas from concentrated bad to the good.]

One of the biggest problems we have is that government holds the purse strings. Our Founders could not forsee the dangers of minting entrusted to the government. With the Federal Reserve, the government can print paper until we look like the Weimar Republic in 1923. In any case, Congress and the Executive can run independent of us, the citizenry, because they control the money, and the money is the source of their physical power, other than police and military. If we can find a way to break this up, we can prevent them from implementing their horrible ideas.

Again, I have just partial answers to some things.

Another one that has never left my mind since I first heard of it years ago is a mechanism to break up incumbency. It went by the name "None of the Above." If "None" won, none of the other candidates could reenter the race to fill the vacant office. I think there is potential here.

Nothing will work until enough of the citizenry rise up, at least in principle. Sam Adams thought 10% were enough. Others have said our original revolution was supported by no more than 1/3rd of the colonists.

We may not yet be to the specifics stage. The blogosphere may be the leading edge of that revolution by disseminating the necessary ideas to an ignorant public. Your questions are very good and may be much too hard to answer circa 2006. But your work on the blogosphere along with that of the enormously expanding presenters of truth is vital. The trouble is, movements in early stages seldom show easily measured progress until some critical mass has been reached. At that point, everyone can see it.

Let's keep truckin' until Critical mass dead ahead!

Dag said...

George, your points are proof positive of the benefits of the Internet and bloggers. I had no thought of the government having a monopoly on currency making. Brand new to me. As is incumbency.

We here in Vancouver meet weekly for just such exchanges of information and ideas. Our hope is to attract that critical mass of concerned citizens to make a revolution in practice. I too think it doesn't take a majority but only a commited few. I base that on my reading of An Intimate History of Killing: Face-to-Face Killing in Twentieth-Century Warfare
by Joanna Bourke, in which the author points out that of the 100 percent of men under fire only 15 percent voluntarily shoot with aim, and the remaining assist in whatever non-combative ways they can. She goes on to point out that the ratio of men in combat to support is today something outrageous like 1 to 100. My point being that it takes only 15 percent or fewer to actually make something work directly.

I use Bourk's numbers to make my point, though that doesn't mean I suggest we ever shoot anyone. Ours is a revolution in attitude. If we fail there we cannot win no matter is we shoot everyone. We do need a fundamental shift in our idea of citizenship and nationhood. And if 15 percent of our population have the means to change the remaining 85 percent I look at it in this way: That if the 15 percent of actors are not united at all but are across the range of actors, then it must be that ten percent are split at each end with five percent in the middle. With a shift of no more than three, one acheives a majority. Those actors in the middle might be active but they are not commited to anything in particular. So, we have less to work at and to worry about than might seem the case. We don't have to change the minds of 50 percent of our nations' publics. We do have to change those who will waver and join the winners.

By meeting in public and attracting adherents to intellectual honesty and common decency and normal morality we show the public that such is viable, and the opportunists will follow, leaving the Left ideologues with a lack of support. It becomes a matter of putting in the hours and the days to hold meetings in public to create a buzz in public.

Most of our struggle is a matter of attitude. We ourselves must have the attitude that we are so right that we can and do speak in public and never shy away from letting our points being known. I do not, though I'm not an aggressive person by nature, allow any idiot anti-Americanism go unchallenged no matter where I might be, whether on a bus or in a cafe or in a store. I treat the speaker, and they are legion here in Canada, as no different from anti-Semites. I explain to the speaker that his or her opinion is as repulsive and disgusting as Jew-hatred. I tell people it is no different, a vile bias based on nothing but brutal ignorance and stupidity. Mpost people are embarrassed to be called out like that in public. They voice their idiocies because they think it's not merely acceptable but that it will endear them to others within earshot. When they encounter opposition they are embarrassed and sometimes humiliated. When we speak up in defence of America we do more than embarrass people, we set a standard of public behaviour and create an opening for others to follow, most of whom are intimidated by the vocal idiots who carry on their uncritical and hateful anti-Americanisms as if that were some right thing. People have public permission to say that anti-Americanism is a new form of ald anti-Semitism. It's ugly, and those who speak it are dirty.

We meet in the atrium of the public library. We're mostly academics and not a loud lot to start with. We do speak openly of our concerns, and we welcome any who would like to join us.

Speaking up is revolutionary in our time. And doing so will change the world for the better. It won't take many of us. It will only take those few who are committed and willing to act against those few others who are also committed-- committed to destroying us.

Ours is a revolution of attitude. Mine is postive.

George Mason said...


Damn, how good it would be to join your group discussions. In the Navy, they used to say "the smoking lamp is lit," so that people could fire up. Your group should say that the thinking lamp is lit. Very exciting even to think about. Even though you are right up the road from us (we are in rural Pacific Northwest), that turns into vast numbers of miles which really get in the way. Nevertheless, we can join you in spirit.

Your comments are as usual well on target. I will pursue that book by Bourke.

This 15:85 distribution shows up in so many places. Once I thought it might represent the so-called Pareto Curve, where some 20% effect change in almost anything, and it might, but I do not know enough to say that yet. Back in my psychiatry days, we kept hearing figures like 15% of the people cause 85% of the crime, 15% drink 85% of the booze, 15% smoke 85% of the tobacco, and so on. I wonder if Joanna Bourke mentions that 15% of men engaging in actual combat release their bowels and bladder contents involuntarily.

The ubiquity of this 15:85 ratio makes me wonder if that is the goal to shoot for, versus getting a majority on board--just as you state.

You said: "Speaking up is revolutionary in our time. And doing so will change the world for the better. It won't take many of us. It will only take those few who are committed and willing to act against those few others who are also committed-- committed to destroying us." Beautifully said. To which I add my paraphrase of Charlton Heston's famous words about his firearms: You can have my Western civilization when you can pry from my cold, dead hands.

friendlysaviour said...

Mark, in your article you have ground the salt-block to granules of salient truths and your commentators have added their hot peppery seasoning! (I've been cooking!)
It seems that huge opurtunities were lost by the Administration when they failed to unite in common purpose against the hub of the support- system of the islamic revolutionary forces that constantly chip away at our rights to determine our destiny, free from cross-contamination with the ideas that islam would enslave us by.
Your analysis is cast iron, your solutions would have been the turning point in the long war.
The long war that is costing the blood of the allies' young men, and fostering discontent throughout the West.
That is not to belittle the actions and intent of the struggles they face, but asks the question, "was it necessary?"
The Saudi Kingdom, if it falls, will be replaced by an unwholesome alliance of dark forces and we should prepare for that dangerous event.
The game being played now, should it go wrong, could lead us into an unstoppable descent into a war the like of which most of us have not witnessed in our days.
Suppression seems to be the nature of the war-game now, and it has so far been effective at great cost, financially and morally, what we do not know is how much the enemy has slipped beneath the security nets, and when their game plans may be enacted on our territories again.
A war cannot be fought with an enemy, whilst we are in their pockets, for that way, short term economic necessity will influence decision making to their advantage.
Could it be that the Saudis have equal complicity with al Quaeda, inasmuch as their plans have the same outcome?
One slower and maintaining their Kingdom, the other swift and placing the Saudi Royals heads on the block alongside ours?

Mark said...

I am so happy that my blog has generated such an intellectual discussion. Thank you all, too, for the compliments. Needless to say, I appreciate them all greatly.