Real Ugliness exposed

This is a post I made to IAC (Infidels Are Cool) regarding the vilification that I received from one disgusting individual with not only an ugly politics behind his hate but a dark secret that I am now forced to publish.   It is self explanatory.

…….

Dear John and other readers of IAC.   Due to the sickening realities that there are ugly and frankly criminal elements in society I am forced to make a statement.  When I mean ugly and criminal, I am not referring to the obvious “rat-bag element” that many blogs and websites have, including this one.

 I am not perfect and certainly my writing style is a bit aggressive and to be obvious I am a bit of a wind-bag, my excuse being writing lengthy reports constantly and not in English.  Almost all aspects of the persona that I give on IAC are accurate with only minor alterations to protect myself.   Having said this – I certainly have nothing to hide.   Most certainly I am not internet savvy and made a “big mistake” in leaving myself open to childish school-yard like attacks as well as to real malicious elements. 

In 2008 I was contacted by a number of activists and journalists that were involved in providing evidence to and reporting on the Australian Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC).  The subject was to help them investigate a Mr Werner Reimann of Cairns, Queensland and the owner of a gift-shop at Cairns Airport.  He ran the website known as Winds of Change, aka Sheik yamami.   I was contacted because of my known involvement in identifying and monitoring Muslim radical groups as well as radical anti-Islam organisations.  Add to that my having family links to Australia helped.   The objective of the investigations was that Reimann had links to a paedophile-ring in Queensland and I was to attempt to extract information via his anti-Islam website.  Though that did not work (and the CMC only convicted one person and had not sufficient information identify/link Reimann, those investigators and myself were at least able to link him to an equally serious kahannist movement and a number of active hate groups.    He has been investigated by the Federal Police on his hate-blog and provocations at the building site of a Cairns Mosque (apparently he does not think that Muslims are allowed one)  http://www.newnation.vg/forums/showthread.php?t=98912  and as explained further, on some more serious and down-right disgusting and perverted matters.

The Commission under its statute was unable to confirm or investigate the links to paedophilia as those in Australia had wanted; the information provided as I understand clearly showed that Werner Reimann was linked to a Gordon, Brian Robert (aged around 56) whom was convicted on 8 charges of indecent assault against four 11 year old boys.     

He was also linked to Gadwin, John (aged around 65) who had later killed himself while facing various charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with minors.   Add to the list, our Werner is also linked to a Wright, Leo Daniel (aged around 57) who had pleaded guilty in 1995 to 17 counts of gross indecency that included 3 girls under 12 years old and a 14 year old boy.

I understand that there was even more with evidence that linked him also to  Ellmore, Robert (aged 61) who was a notorious paedophile and sex offender for over 30 years before giving himself up to police.

Incidently, most of these people reportedly linked to Werner are ex Christian Priests.

 The worst link of all though, is his supposed connections via being on the private mailing list to the notorious “Chris” aka Chris Evans whom was not mentioned by the commission, but later through the media and the subject of this and further inquiries into the Queensland Police covering up a paedophile ring.   Even now, you can find angry websites still wanting to know what is happening to stop this “ring” and what has happened to Chris Evans.  Perhaps Werner may know the answer, be sure he has been asked.   http://danielmorcombephotoevidenceupdatepolicegagthreatenwitness.info/TheEVIDENCEthatthePOLICEhaveCONCEALED.php#The_EVIDENCE   and   http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2417501.htm?site=farnorth 

 In light of the unwarranted attempt by Werner’s to vilify me, I sent a message to my two journalist friends and asked what, if anything, I should do.   They said simply tell what you know as I am only part of the link and if Werner wishes to make a thing about it then he just exposes his ugly side even more and will suffer the consequences.   I am obliged, of course, even over here in Morocco, to say that the information I have was given to me but even with my own rather pathetic internet skills, all the names and events are there with simple searches.

Werner will no doubt scream and deny, we know that he became “p*ssed-off” at me not because of my linking his name to his blog-site and as the kahannist he is, or that endangered his safety from so-called radical Muslims but because in the same sentence of exposing him I told him what investigation I was really a part of when I said “like informing communities of the existence of a paedophile in their neighbourhood, they should also know about the presence of someone like Werner”.   He got that message clear enough and we know the enraged ugliness of his response.  That day, so I understood, a red-faced Werner stormed out his house and damaged his car door with a swift kick that left him limping.

I did not enjoy telling this but since he crossed the line yet again and made it personal, I am forced to expose him once again.    Dirty filth like this person needs to be exposed for the ugliness and perversion that they represent.   They hide, often trying to be a bastion of responsibility, such as clergy, or the leader of a group or ideal such as anti-jihad.  They also are often linked to more than one horrible activity, such as the murderous kahannist groups.   You may be not interested in that or even support some elements of his blog – that is fine, but I am sure none of you support his more private pleasures and perversions.

 I was going to tell the blog that I will give you all a reprieve from my postings as at the end of this coming week I have work in Istanbul, Ankara and Damascus for a month, but to release the pressure, I will help the situation by stopping now and returning later on.  You may not like me, despise my religion or think my agenda of defending my faith but blaming radicals as stupid – but as a father of two girls and two boys, an active and supporting member of Touché Pas Ma Enfant, Maroc (Do Not Touch My Child), I am absolutely certain that there is no one on this blog that would not support my hatred for such a sick f*ck as this guy.

My apologise to John, the owner of this blog that the link and connection to Werner was exposed and has disrupted your blog, it was not my intention but forced upon me – note that he did not bother to warn or excuse himself.

A DYING REPUTATION – THE JEKYLL AND HYDE OF DOCTOR BULLDOG & RONIN

There is a conservative blog called Doctor Bulldog and Ronin that is destroying itself and condemning the blog to crack-pot status because half of the blog is simply mad.  Its reasonable popularity is dwindling and its reputation is near collapse.  Its source of interest is being sucked into a deep black-hole.

The blog is ultra-conservative with very strong anti-Obama rhetoric.  This in itself does not matter simply because it follows the very American habit of free political expression.  If anything, the comments of Doctor Bulldog whom concentrates on mostly political arguments, are very intelligent, articulate and thus puts strong a strong case forward each time.   He simply does not rant for the sake of ranting.    He is also open to learning from others, which is a great sign.

But Doctor Bulldog is weak, not from his political leanings or what he says, but because of some overwhelming link to his destructive and illogical partner in the blog – Ronin.

Ronin is the complete opposite of Doctor Bulldog.  Not in the political sense but in that as the “Doc” is intelligent, articulate and puts that strong case forward, Ronin simply plies incoherent rhetoric of the ugly hate-kind and will not tolerate any argument or debate – he will simply cut posts and pretend they do not exist.

The Doc is willing to engage debate, learn and if he finds a hole or an error in a report, identify it – his counterpart simply copies and pastes known agenda-hate from discredited sources.

In some fashion, having a Jekyll and Hyde/dark-side versus the light-side may be interesting but that only works if they are of the same quality.   Posters who make comments that Ronin does not like but have a good discussion and debate with Doctor Bulldog are banned from the blog and thus are unable to simply engage with the latter.

The obvious religious bigotry by Ronin brings down the blog as a whole to a level of not being worth it and it is becoming difficult to filter through the anti-Islamic propaganda and somewhat juvenile rhetoric to find the good pieces that Doctor Bulldog does produce.   The blog is willing to put up with a particularly low-class of evangelists selling their faith at the expense of dignified conduct simply because they will support any mindless and baseless drubbing they think they can throw on anything “Muslim”.

It beggars belief that Doctor Bulldog does not pull the plug on his darker mindless co-blogger and go on by himself; he certainly would get more readers if not a strong support base and shed his now tarnished association with what can only be logically described as an illogical hate-monger.

How Dr Abdullah Abdullah Screwed-up Afghanistan’s Chances

Afghani opposition presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah is known as a smart and educated man with excellent diplomatic credentials. The Pushtun former medical doctor – turned diplomat and politician has all the makings of a great leader and perhaps President, he certainly has worked and risked his life on countless occasions for his beloved Afghanistan.

Having said all the above, Dr Abdullah has probably just made the biggest mistake of his life and missed the best opportunity for giving Afghanistan a chance of real peace and stability. His choice not to run in the second round of elections set for 7 November 2009 on ground that it may not be fair was certainly a statement to support his own candidacy and influence.  It may seem like the words of a person pointing out unfairness and corruption and thus a protest, but will it help the desperate situation that Afghanistan faces?   Was it the right thing to do?

This decision to not participate has only given ammunition to every disruptive player in the conflict that is the reality of Afghanistan. The Taliban will give the classic “I told you so” and in reality they have been given a propaganda gift they could not have dreamed of.   Elements of the armed forces and police whom have swinging or unsure loyalties will have less reason for supporting the government and those that wish to try and influence through corruption will argue that – it is the norm after all!

It could be argued that Dr Abdullah chose for his own self-interest to look like the moral victim and to prepare his case for being the next President if and when the current administration fails or is toppled. In doing so he may have ensured the continuation of the very bad situation and even further collapse of an already flawed system – that may bring his own chances of leadership as an ever-more-so less likely event.

Had Dr Abdullah ran in the election and failed with either obvious corruption or some question of it, he would have looked the victim but at least showed supported for the system and the unity of Afghanistan.

Such a show of unity would have boosted confidence in the public’s perception, the political establishment and foreign governments that Afghanistan has some form of workign system and thus stability.  The arguments given by the Taliban and other interest groups within the country that are the real and present problem argue that there is no working system, it is corrupt and that they have the solution. The best form of attack against radicalism remains – workable normality.  Additionally, the self-destructiveness of the Afghani political and social system is a major reason why some military and aide contributing countries are pulling out, they simply are beginning to wonder if it all is worth the effort or “why bother if they are not willing to help themselves first?”.

No, Dr Abdullah Abdullah has made a very, very big mistake indeed and Afghanistan will suffer for it.

BRENT BUDOWSKY CORRECTLY SAYS – “Bring back the Glass-Steagall Act”

Pundit columnist and experienced political insider Brent Budowsky earlier this week correctly said in an article that we need to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act; the law that separated those financial businesses that took speculative financial risks from the conventional banking companies. 

In this article Budowsky said 

The mistake was made at the end of the Clinton administration when a bipartisan deal, fueled by Wall Street lobbying, broke apart the regulatory limits and set loose the speculative fanaticism that caused our current crisis.

Also gave examples such as

It was wrong to merge Bank of America with Merrill Lynch, wrong to merge JPMorgan with Bear Stearns and appalling that taxpayers were forced to subsidize these deals.

I could not agree more with Budowsky on this matter and his expertise in financial law comes through with this basic subject that most others and the authorities seem to have lost themselves within.

RUSSELL KIRK’S 10 CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES

I woke up rather early this morning (kidney stone problems) and ended up browsing the net and came upon a very interesting and well presented blog called the Constitution Club.  They have a new thread which discussed an item by Russell Kirk of The Kirk Center who I have read before and enjoyed and I wish I had read this item before I started my blog.

Kirk’s piece 10 Conservative Principles for my part is a very good platform to understand the ideological base of the what is the conservative right.  You can read the Kirk Center item here  but I will write what mostly interests me below in the reply that I put to the Constitution Club blog item.

This item is very interesting and I wish I read the Kirk article before I started my blog two days ago. It has been a subject that has dominated my thoughts over the last couple of years (have lots of free time these days) and under the typical way of viewing liberal/conservative I considered myself smack in the center and neither of the two.

There are three elements of the 10 conservative principles mentioned in the article that are for me defining.

“Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.”

The Kirk item correctly states that “Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity.” The need for change for change sake or a theory of constant alteration and adjustment for improvement creates instability and chaos. Modifications, if proven necessary are fine, but simply put – let it come naturally.

“Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.”

Kirk says that “if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.”

I would add that it is the principles and high standards that are set as our guide are constantly questioned and altered, that guide is lost.

“Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.”

Simply put by Kirk, “the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence.” A purist-liberal system is attempting to collectively create a benevolent system and risks falling for the opposite.

I put in my blog and had a brief discussion with another about the possibility of sitting in the middle. I think it is possible based on the fact that conservatism is more of a set of ideals and liberalism if more of a set of actions and that the natural middle-point between the two is a prudent point of care and awareness but accepting that it an unemotional one. Human nature has emotions and opinions, inbuilt bigotries and preferences. It is still a thought that I am exploring.

Hoping that you do not mind, I will quote and link this post and item to my own blog, I certainly will be giving it along with this blog a thumbs-up for raising awareness and good discussion/debate.

TWR

A QUESTION : WHAT WORRIES YOU?

What worries you?  I mean, in the context of all the issues in our world, our nations and our communities.  What do you think is the most important?

I ask this because I wonder about the priorities that are given by the main stream media (MSM), our governments and our politicians.

For me I have a list and I wonder what your list is.

My list goes as follows and in priority:

Economy, law & order, overseas wars, political cohesion and health care.

The economy for me is a priority, if it fails and more lose their jobs it affects everyone and the items on the list.  Today they say it has stabilized but I worry if they have actually learned enough from the disaster to have made the necessary checks and balances to stop it happening again.   I have lost all faith in investment bankers in particular.

Law & Order.  I live in a great area, a protected neighbourhood but I worry about the concentration by the media in some areas and missing the rest.  The drug war in Mexico and Central America has exploded and there are cities in Columbia that have over 30 drug related killings every night!  We are the market and it affects our kids.   Also, I am a believer in the right to defend oneself and own a gun, but why the hell is it still so easy to get illegal  weapons?   Just the other day a guy who got pulled over for drunk driving had a 60 cal. in the back of his pick-up and after interrogation, he believed it was to protect his family from intruders.

The dangers of life here are still way more important than the dangers from abroad.  Certainly those terrorist plotters here (or any location) need to worked on and hard, and I think the effort is there.  Having said that, the media focuses on that subject and then forgets that watching a guy being arrested for terror plotting in the mid-west is trivia if you have just been bashed and robbed at gun-point ten minutes from home (example, not happened to me thank God).

I then put the war and the safety of our men and women on my list of concerns.  I have strong feelings of the mistake of being still in Iraq and the need to work hard on Afghanistan.  I hav relatives in Iraq, have not lost one yet but do not know those that have – on both sides of the Atlantic.   The wars affects everything, the amounts of money spent have an impact on our economy and the daily happiness of its citizens and that is enough.   The only positive side that I have seen (unless you count that a victory in Afghanistan is important and a great thing) is that it has brought our nation together in respect for the armed forces.  If only it did so politically……yeah wishfull thinking.

Political cohesion for me is very important and comes in next.  I am sick to death of the polarization of the country.  The right is I think more right, the left is more obstinate (not more left) and the BS about once a President is elected the country sticks behind him is now a fantasy that maybe us old-timers still dream of.    I am not a Democrat, my first ever vote was for Reagan and I do think he was on reflection a very good President.   The point is, Obama was elected and now is the time for everyone to work for the country and the political agenda-BS is for me, unpatriotic and pathetic.

Health Care – As you get older or you have family with health issues, you start to really take notice and interest in health care.  I have good coverage and considering our family issues it has proven worth every penny, but I am embarrased that the biggest economy and a nation with probably the highest opinion of itself is rated in the bottom third of developed nations in regards to public care systems.  

Anyone else like to give it a try?

THREE PRINCIPLES OF DEALING WITH CONFLICTS (AND SOLVING ISSUES)

Introduction

There are numerous theories on the methods of waging conflicts and wars and there are careers, degrees and entire institutions dealing with them.   So which one is the best and to follow?   Shall we follow all of them or none?  Probably more compelling is the question that with all this expertise why are there are failures and disasters.   The historic Chinese master of war philosophy Sun Tzu is well known and well followed but without success.  Carl von Clausewitz is probably more understood by military personnel and so well studied that great strategies are formed – but still there are failures.

The reason for failure is actually very simple.  The common element on all theories for successfully waging conflict and war acknowledges the complexities and variants that must be fulfilled and not all of them are successfully controlled by the one side or under the one command structure.  Additionally, there are always forces trying to counter that fulfillment, be it the opponent or other factors human or otherwise.

What is additionally interesting is that these theories and principles that deal with war and physical conflict also are relevant to all forms of conflict and even success in endeavors – and more importantly they suffer the same reasons for failure.

Three Commonalities in War Theorem

All the major theorists, philosophers and practitioners from the Ancient Greeks and Chinese to the periods of Napoleon, Nelson, Clausewitz and Von Hindenburg, Yamamoto and Erwin Rommel to the abundant number of qualified experts of recent and present time – all share three basic essential elements or “Principles” that are critical for success.  If one of these fails, the conflict is never going to be successful.

These are my own interpretations of these theorems and I have made my own conclusions.  What I certainly have avoided (for this document) is raise the subject of the causes and reasons for going into a conflict in the first place!

1. THE CAPACITY TO WAGE THE CONFLICT SUCCESSFULLY.  This is the capacity to wage war militarily and logistically to the end result.  Enough soldiers, the technology sufficient, able to protect lines of supply and so on.  Most of all it is a clear objective for what the conflict is.
2. THE CAPACITY TO GAIN, HAVE GAINED OR EXTRACT SUPPORT OF THE FIELD OF CONFLICT.  This is the requirement to have or to ensure support locally.   Battles can be won but sustained victory does happen until full control is won.  It may be the case that the support exists already in the case of the liberation of terrain or it may be that suppression of the population is total.  On the negative side – the opponent may be the population itself.
3. THE CAPACITY TO HAVE OR CONTROL HOME SUPPORT.  An often early success in battle and the creation of an unquestionably superior military force ends in utter failure if and when the support at home dries up.   From lack of recruits to parliaments and congresses refusing to vote supply and logistics, the need for support at home is simply critical.   There is some question to dictatorial regimes gaining such control automatically through political control, but then that may cause weakness elsewhere in, for instance, the first principle.

Examples of Success and Failure

When all three principles are taken into consideration and is neither successfully sabotaged nor impeded, victory is certain and automatic.   

The still recent example of the Falklands War is the best example of the British Military having all three factors accounted for.   The superior military machine of the British had better technology, professional troops that were well equipped and a naval presence that ensured supply.   The terrain was for the British a subject of liberation, thus the support of the Falkland population was there.  Support from the British Government and its people were for all purposes unquestionable.  

In the reverse, the Argentine military was less powerful in all but troop numbers and some of those troops were often unwilling conscripts.  They did not have support of the population on the islands and though they had force enough for control when invading unchallenged, it became a detriment and liability in the forthcoming conflict.  There is still a debate how much support was at home for Argentina as nationalism and claims over sovereignty made the action popular but elements of the military infrastructure, junta members and the elite were simply aware and afraid of the implications of all-out conflict (some say it was in fact a gamble that failed, that the British would accede to avoid conflict.  They had underestimated Margaret Thatcher’s reputation as the Iron Lady)

The aim of the conflict was liberation of the Falklands (from the British perspective) and for that purpose the principles were clearly in favor and supported a victory.  The opposite was in case of Argentina, with perhaps the First and Second Principles destined to fail – in fact any one the three principles failing is a recipe for disaster.

There are many examples of failures and they become easily identifiable when looked at via the three principles.  Below are three well known examples.

The Vietnam War was lost on the Second and Third Principles and thus pushing pressure on sustainability of the First Principle to constantly enlarge force numbers.   We know that the majority of the population of Vietnam was supporting the communists and the people themselves became the enemy making the terrain permanently hostile.   The lack of success and large casualties dried up support at home and the political will was lost making the Third Principle not achievable – loss was inevitable. 

The Korean War was lost by both sides by failure on the First and Second Principles and eventually the Third.  UN and South Korean troops had stronger power until China intervened on North Korea’s side resulting in a stalemate and thus either was unable ensure a victory.  Interestingly, the population was simply unhappy and tired of conflict to a point that they supported neither side.  Many records show that those that supported the communist north considered Chinese forces to be as much as foreign invaders as the UN troops.  The people in the South were almost as scared of corrupt government troops as becoming collateral damage.  Both populations were near the end in many cases starving and homeless.  The principle players for the UN, the US and Commonwealth military forces were losing support quickly at home because the conflict was becoming a costly war instead of a police action and it was pushed more by political ideology than simply a war of aggression.

The Cold-War was a conflict of ideology and military brinkmanship and was eventually won by the West.   But in the correlation of The Three Principles of Conflict, how does it fair?    There was no chance of victory by any side militarily but they chose to begin, thus it came down to who lost.  Add to that, what really is the capacity to wage a war of brinkmanship and political influence?  It was not just how many nuclear warheads and delivery systems, it was how many countries would come under each of the protagonist’s sphere of influence?  Diplomacy and economic was in fact part of the “Capacity to wage the conflict”.   In that case, both were capable of winning if enough sides came aboard.   Thus, now that it is a part of history, we know that communism failed.  We cannot say that capitalism and democracy won, because not all friendly nations to the West are fully capitalistic or are democratic – but we can say the Soviet-sphere communism did fail in the First Principle of the capacity to wage that conflict by not gaining enough influence.   Interestingly, the appeal of the economic power and liberties of the Western-sphere was enough to ensure failure of home support for all those developing nations’ own internal conflicts of who were thinking of joining the Soviet-block.

The Second Principle was the hearts, mind and control over those nations that did become part of that Soviet-sphere.  Apart from failing to successfully indoctrinate enough nations, there was dissention and eventually change in those nations that counted. 

In the end, the Third Principle of home support reached critical mass within the Soviet Union itself when economics, the abandonment of important key players (East Germany, Hungry and Poland) fell apart.    Based on the Three Principles, the Cold-War was doomed for the Soviets.

What does this tell us about existing conflicts?

Today in “The Pundits Blog – The Hill”, the strong-conservative blogger Bernie Quigley said it was President Obama’s job to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.    A very simplistic statement to make, and the desire to bring back our boys and girls from harms way is compelling, but is this statement actually logical and wise, let alone possible?

Iraq

One of the components of the above First Principle of conflicts is clear objectives and fulfilling it or not (success or failure).  We can argue that the war in Iraq was for either the incorrect basis of an attack on terror (Al Qaeda camps) or for regime change.  Either way, the objectives have now changed and once a country has been taken over militarily, its security infrastructure destroyed and its government toppled, you have a number of obligations.  The objective now in Iraq is to leave the country with a viable security infrastructure, government and capacity to make economy and simply pack up and get out.

I do not claim to be an expert on Iraq, but has America, its allies and the present government in Iraq the capacity to achieve those things?  Frankly speaking, I doubt it.   By default, whilst there are bombs, insurgents and crippling violence, the battle must be considered continuing.   The Second Principle of support locally is also in the sway.  Yes the government supports the conflict, the people want peace and tranquility but large sections consider foreign troops as invaders, radical religious elements say there is a holy element and the fractured political allegiances make for divided loyalties and support.

Support at home is also now dwindling and there is questioning of the value, need and even the right to be there.  The political establishment has made it clear, continued pouring of money into Iraq is not going to continue much longer.

From the above, there is no victory or success possible in Iraq but by the mistakes made in the previous objectives given, there are obligations now to have a costly and drawn-out withdrawal.     I always wonder why false promises are made, simply put why America chose to take over instead of simply jump in and out still bothers me greatly. As we lose our loved ones and dedicated men and women for questionable reasons, it simply hurts.

Afghanistan

The objective of Afghanistan is to destroy Al Qaeda and those that support it, aka the radical elements of the Taliban tribal system.   By doing so, the tools are military and establishing a viable government and security service in that country – as is the case of Iraq.   The difference though is that the embattled government in place is supportive (and supported) and the battle-field is in the hearts and minds of the population as much as in the mountains and villages.

The capacity to wage this conflict is by all admission, not enough.  There are calls for troop increases, the investment into local forces and police are abysmal and as some more intelligent analysts are saying, the world is fatigued into investing into this war.  We know that more troops will come and as you will see in this next section, the make-up is wrong.

Support locally is in some analysts’ books the more important factor than simply military strength.  The hearts and minds of Afghanis are critical and the imbedded ultra-conservative Islam-tribal mix that is Taliban is very strong.  The average Afghani does not express opinions but accepts the choice the tribe makes collectively.  The hard almost subsistence level of village life is priority over politics which is also linked into the drug-trade (the need to grow opium poppies for cash).  At present, the system is not changing fast enough and the Taliban have the edge over grabbing the local’s attention.   Right now the Second Principle is losing, but just.   There is a small but intelligent call by some experts that question why there are not enough, if not the majority of, foreign forces being from Muslim nations.  Such a force would give a clear message to locals that it is not a war waged by foreign Christian invaders which the Taliban use and abuse.

As with Iraq, support at home is falling fast.  It is somewhat fatigue from the war in Iraq, the fact that there are other issues such as economy and people do no see an easy identifiable result.  This Third Principle is very quickly being lost.

From the above, we can say that things must change if there is going to be any chance of success in Afghanistan.   More must be put into the war effort, Muslim countries need to be actively involved, there must be some real “surge” in gaining the understanding of locals and American and other allied populations and governments must shake out of the stupor they are currently stuck in.   The war in Afghanistan is, for my part, a justifiable and necessary conflict that needs to be won.  If it fails, the war on terror will have stepped back to the period just after 11 September 2001 and a message of encouragement will travel to all radicals and extremists that terror works.

Using The Three Principles of Conflict in other areas

As you have seen with the Cold-War example, these Three Principles can easily apply to a conflict without shooting and linked to politics and diplomacy.   Over a number of years, I have started to apply the same value system to all areas of conflict, dispute and even coordinated effort – and it appears to work well.

Discussing this with a group of lawyers that I often work with I gave a small lecture on the subject and found total agreement that it applies to legal battles.   In the simplest terms, the capacity to wage conflict is evidence, the support locally is gaining such evidence and witnesses and the support at home is the law itself and the jury.

I have also put this system into place with judging things of importance, such as supporting or not supporting government programs and policies.  So right now I am still calculating if the Obama Administration’s policy on health care reform is viable and will work or not.  Does it have the tools to succeed is the First Principle – will it give the care required without damaging other areas and it basically it is going to work?   Does it have the support in the field – will the stakeholders work with it or not (the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, etc)?   The Third Principle of course is do we as a whole support it, does Congress and the various interest groups?  

I ask the readers of this to consider and imagine disputes and conflicts that they had or have seen and ask about the outcomes and then ask, was it the capacity to fight it, the local factors or the support base that failed or a combination?  

Thank you for your time and patience.

READING BETWEEN THE LINES & THE LIES

I have been called many things in my life and amongst them is direct, blunt and pig-headed.  I never considered any of those as a negative.

This blog is both an experiment in a domain I have never entered as well as a personal passion-crusade-habit.   My tolerance is low for those that say one thing but hide an agenda and for those that make comments on subjects that they have no knowledge about and call them fact.

In regards to politics I do not support either the conservative or liberal side of things and find myself floating between the two clearly around the center.  It is this center point that for me is important as the more one heads either to the left or the right – problems and mistakes are made and simply put the political spectrum is now more polarized than ever.

The far-left and far-right of politics are a danger and the real ones who are espousing and encouraging ignorance and radicalism. They breed the hidden agendas, they sell-out and join forces with religious extremists and they smile and promise the world if necessary.   It might be with printing presses or the internet over here, or bombs and bullets in the Middle-East or South Asia – but they are all the same to me.

I will post items about current affairs, international politics and those other issues that interest me and anyone is welcome to comment, ask questions or debate. 

Be sure I will always appreciate honest opinions and ideas, but certainly be just as sure that I will question, probe and throw back any points that have no basis in fact, proof or are from simple emotion.