FIRST STRIKE

FIRST STRIKE

“Civility only resonates with Civilized people, and Violence only registers with violent people”
P.I.B.

For centuries fathers have given this sage advice to their sons: “don’t ever look for a fight, but if you must; fight to win”
My dad told me: “ Don’t look for a fight, but if one is unavoidable, Hit first, hit fast, hit hard, and hit last. Win at all costs.”

Most civilized peoples and countries abhor violence and war. The vast majority of people would always prefer to live in peace. We have all been taught that war is not only something to be avoided, but it should always be the last option.

“ Peace is always preferable, but in the course of human events, sometimes conflict and even war is unavoidable”

In keeping with this desire to avoid war, yet recognizing each nation’s undeniable right to self defense a tactical dilemma exists. If war is eminent and unavoidable does a nation have to wait to be attacked in order to offer a defense? Is it necessary to suffer casualties in order to maintain the moral high ground.

With today’s advances in weapons and warfare, the one who strikes first has a decisive advantage. In years past, an Army could afford to take the first blow and then counter with their own offensive counter attack. In today’s war fighting arena, we can not afford to turn the other check. The defender, who waits, can not afford to absorb a lightening fast crippling blow that could literally neutralize an effective counter attack.

Despite our best wishes and concerted efforts to handle all situations in a political, diplomatic, or peaceful forum, it takes two to talk peace. Like it or not there are those, that would do us great harm. The genie is out of the bottle. The exclusive club of nuclear nations is soon to be joined by some new and highly volatile members.

Today, the risks and stakes are raised significantly with weapons that are capable of taking out entire cities. A determined enemy can inflict more damage in one day (possibly into the millions) than was done in any war of the past. A single war head can kill large numbers in a 3-10 mile radius. In this type of scenario, there are no do-overs, and there is no second place winner. Past wars were just as brutal and unthinkable, yet the causalities might seem minor to the effects of a Weapon of Mass destruction. (although each and every death is tragic) Here are a few statistics from previous wars. (not counting wounded and deaths out of theater)

American Revolution ( 1775-1783) 4,435 battle deaths

Civil War ( 1861-1865) 140,414 “union” and 74,524 “conf”

Gulf War (1990-1991) 147 battle deaths

War on Terror as of 2006 over 4,000

American wars Total 653,708

Even the smallest and most economically challenged countries of the world can now garner highly advanced armament as well as weapons of mass destruction (either chemical, nuclear, or conventional). Using these indiscriminate weapons can lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions of casualties. In the wrong hands weapons such as these could be purposely brought to bear on non-combatants and innocent civilian populations.

So, the question remains, Is a tactical first strike capability a viable option? And, will the countries leadership be ready, willing, and able to use it if that need or opportunity should occur. Having this first strike capability and having the will and ability to use it, are two different things. Any leader or commander that would knowingly take the First Strike option off the negotiating table or the battle plan would severely weaken his position.

Israel for one, is now in a dilemma where this issue will need to be decided. I believe they have the capability, they have the resolve, and they have the internal support to utilize a first strike strategy. In their mind waiting only exasperates the problem and lessens its viability as a military option. They believe that their right to self defense usurps the demands of the United Nations and international law. Due to the small size and population of their country they cannot fight a war of attrition.

Let’s face it, the stakes are much higher today. Modern weaponry is capable of great destruction, of both military and innocent civilian targets. Especially when our opponents are less technologically advanced, they will seek out soft targets such as civilians to exact a toll on our country. In our culture we prefer to hold to our higher standards and want the world to view us as the reluctant participant in any conflict. I can assure you that our enemies will harbor no such moral dilemma.

You heard it before and it is true. “The best defense is a good offense”. The threat of a massive pre-emptive strike and its horrible aftermath has given pause to many an evil world leader. The sad and unfortunate truth is that someone starts all wars. I deplore the use of war as a political tool, however, I am a strong believer in Self Defense. (in the home, on the street, and on the battlefield)

Please don’t judge my political leaning or intent by the scope of this information. Just as you would surely use any means at your discretion to stop someone that entered your home with bad intentions. I feel that If someone has the intention to do great harm to America..all I can say is.. “Not in our house”

Please feel free to contact me at: pooritalianboy@gmail.com

P.I.B.

FAILED FOREIGN POLICY

FAILED FOREIGN POLICY

Sometimes we all choose to believe something is real, even though intellectually we know it isn’t so. Some times we just want to believe in something and allow it to pass our reality test, and at other times it’s just good honest fun. Most of the time, its harmless for us to perpetuate these myths and go about of lives in the real world. So, I’ll give a pass to all of you who believe in Wrestling, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny.

However, we clearly lost the recent contest of wills with the North Koreans. They announced they were going to launch a “communications” satellite and we postured up and told them we would shoot it down. We bandied about some other strongly worded political rhetoric and then sat back and watched as the North Koreans did what they wanted to do. They knew the odds were strongly in their favor because we had backed down on the much larger nuclear proliferation contest already. Not to mention the fact that we prosecuted a half won war there many years ago that we are still supporting with troops.

To make matters worse they threatened us and the world community with superlatives as to their retaliation if we tried to interfere.( their bluff worked). We retracted our own statement regarding shooting down the missile, and of course they took that as intrinsic permission to move ahead. There is no doubt that their regime gathered important scientific data that will enhance their ability to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile at the U.S. (giving them even more tactical and political capital to use against us at the next showdown). We could have stopped the missile pre-flight or had our Japanese Allies shoot it down (we have given them the means to do so). There is no question in my mind that they will both use, and export this technology to our enemies. (some have bombs and no delivery systems, others have delivery systems and no bombs.. go fish)

I think what concerns me most is when we incorporate this “wishful” thinking into our foreign policy. When we knowingly accept the word and propaganda of another country that intends to do us harm. I get upset when we are being intellectually dishonest with our self and the American people, in matters that concern national security. The worst part is we do it over and over again, with every despot and half baked dictator around the world. What naiveté, “Come on, let’s not make waves”, maybe they really are doing what they are telling us.

There is a game that children pay called “Mother May I”. In the game the children all stand obediently in a line before the all knowing “mother”. One at a time they each ask mother for permission to take a step forward. Mother plays a strategic game allowing each to make some forward progress, some by baby steps and some by giant steps (based on how pleased Mom is with each of their behaviors and how eloquently they each ask for permission.) But, Old Mom is no fool, she knows that if she allows one participant too many steps forward, they will eventually “catch” her. To insure she stays in power, Mom appears gracious in her allocation of small successes, but in the end always sends the advancing participants back to the starting line. It’s great fun as a kid’s game, but is this the way for us to conduct ourselves on the world political stage?

It seems to me that all the world leaders that would threaten and defy the United States and the world community all know how to play this game, very well. They have learned the game of patience; they know that the leadership of the United States will play by the rules. They move forward with their destructive agenda and allow us some small successes along the way. As we get closer to making any real progress they cry foul and send us back to the starting line. The whole time these devious leaders have no real intention of complying with our wishes or objectives, as they slowly make progress to their ultimate goals.

Two steps forward and one step back, appearing to comply or feigning the desire to negotiate, while inching ever slightly towards their ultimate objective with each passing day. ( Insert the Iranian nuclear contest of wills here) They allow us to rejoice in our perceived diplomatic momentum, offering us just enough apparent success to keep us in the game. (and avoid the penalty phase). These rouge governments also realize that we have allies and detractors in the United Nations and the world community. They alternately seek approval from one sympathetic ear and then the other, much as a child that was told not to do something by one parent.

How foolish our efforts truly must appear in their eyes as they play a careful and well calculated game of cat and mouse. They know that time and public opinion will dilute the resolve and attention span of the American people. We are always so willing to trust and forget the lessons of the past. While we couch our foreign policy statements in carefully constructed, politically ambiguous, and correct terms they threaten us with blatant and inflammatory statements and threats of retaliation.

We adulterate our demands with the use of politically correct language such as “ We are leaving all options on the table” (a watered down reference to the possible use of force), or we may need to take “extreme measures”. Of course, none of these veiled threats ever deter the “evil doers” from their mission at hand. For a threat to be effective, you have to occasionally back that threat with action. Our enemies know that we are a paper tiger, and rarely if ever, back a diplomatically correct “threat” with any action. They also know that we are increasingly reluctant to act unilaterally, and God forbid acting preemptively to defuse a threat. (We need to learn a lesson from our friends in Israel) Those that would defy us and do us harm, realize that we would first go to the United Nations or try to form a coalition before taking any action.

Over time when you don’t say what you mean, and mean what you say, you loose creditability. When you loose creditability you loose the “fear factor” and perhaps more importantly, also the ability to “bluff”. In any negotiation, when you loose the ability to bluff, you are left with only a few options including walking away with your tail between your legs and all out war.

We need to revamp our foreign policy and regain our international creditability. I think the reputation we need to portray to the world is that we are fair, but tough. We need to lead with diplomacy, but not rely solely on it. Mostly we need to be consistent in our demands and expectations so that others can tell where we really stand on matters of national and global security.

Remember, there are others out there who would doubt our intentions and our resolve. There are many who will confuse our compassion for weakness. It’s vital that we respond to threats and intimidating gestures with the right posture, and measure reactions, the World is watching.

Please feel free to contact me at: pooritalianboy@gmail.com

P.I.B.