When I think of the sacrifices being made for you. I think you do not deserve such men. But
then perhaps no one ever did. Generation after generation you get them whether
you deserve them or not. How unfair.
45 minutes is at the outside.
And the thing is I do not think that anyone actually
doubts that it takes 45 minutes to load chemical rounds into forward batteries and fire them.
(45 minutes only if the rounds are stored in the rear, for safety. But
I doubt that Saddam Hussein cared if the rounds were kept away from the forward batteries.
If counter battery fire should set them off by accident, so what, bring
more up, remove the corpses from the howitzers and start firing.) The carping
about the 45 minutes was purely a political exercise. Politics at its worst. Simple egotistical self assertion.
In Holocaust films there is the scene where the
family is gathered around the radio and the announcer reads the latest decree. This
is that time for us. Only for us it is taking place in real time, and we do not
know the ending. Probably you have more than 45 minutes, but don’t count
on much more. The problem with history dramas is that we know how it turns out. The wife pleads with the man to leave before it is too late, and his refusal is seen
with knowledge of the outcome. And we shout at the screen, “Get out!”
Not only does it damage the drama it instills in the audience a false since of omnipotence that lingers long after the play. The audience did not understand the limitations that the characters faced during the
play, and then in leaving the playhouse they fail to realize their own limitations today.
So then this is the first distortion of History. Our knowledge distorts our understanding of History and, the second distortion of
History is that it poisons our understanding of the present, because the unknown is not fully appreciated because we have
studied too much History. We have a false since of omnipotence. The result is that when we apply our knowledge to say, for example, military science, this distortion of
History corrupts our understanding.
One of the greatest fallacy in military science
is the failure to distinguish between intention and capability. Neither can be
determined with 100 percent certainty but of the two, estimates of capability, because they rely on the Natural Sciences,
which more readily allow for quantification, offer the greater opportunity for successful estimates, than do estimates of intention, which must be based on the
less quantifiable science of Psychology, and therefore offers fewer opportunities for successful estimation. Note, I refer only to estimation not prediction. Predictions
are for carnival performers.
No one could have known that Hitler would launch
his war before his submarine fleet was completed and therefore condemned himself to certain failure. Who could have guessed that Hitler would fail to recognize the importance of jet turbine technology, with
which the Luftwaffe could have controlled the skies of Europe and changed the future to the world? It is classic and fitting justice that Hitler regarded physics as the “Jewish Science” and
therefore failed to adequately support the development of the NAZI bomb. All
of these things were well within the capabilities of Hitler’s Germany, and yet owing to his particular psychology he
failed in example after example to see the opportunities that lay at hand, and seize them, and there by rest . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . uh . . . . .
Ah, and th-th-th-thank goodness. (I should explain that the reason we pay more attention to Napoleon, and Lee, and Rommel, than to the good guys, is not because their side is preferred but because it presents the greater challenge. Wellington, Grant, and Eisenhower, (let’s not forget Montgomery), did enough
things right to win. But what might have been done differently to change the
outcome?) Most people accept the world as it is, as if its acceptance were a
necessity, and I suppose in fact it is. But none the less the outcome might have
been different, for better or for ill. This failure to perceive this fact, that
it might have been otherwise, is the result of another distortion of History.
Mr. Hussein, might have had, might still have,
weapons of mass destruction. He had that capability. That these weapons have not yet been found is a source of alarm rather than a proof that they did not,
do not, exist. To ask the leadership to “predict” outcomes rather
than make estimates of probable outcomes shows a lack of seriousness in the examination.
As for example when former Democrat party operative, Tim Russert , said, “At least when Saddam Hussein was in
power we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were.” Knew where they
were? This is the sort of thing you can only get away with on the Don Imus show. Or that other Democrat party operative, Stephanopoulos, who when interviewing the
Secretary of Defense, seemed surprised to learn that the Secretary really was concerned that weapons of mass destruction might
be used. Stephanopoulos asked, “Then going to war might have brought about
your worst fears?” The Secretary’s worst fears? They are not Stephanopoulos’ worst fears also? Not mine
and yours too? Only the Secretary’s?
The Secretary is not a fortuneteller. He can not predict. There are at least three moving targets
in three different theaters of operation: 1, the position of WMD in Iraq and
elsewhere, 2, the CIA’s ability to track WMD outside the U. S., and third, the FBI’s ability to track them in
the U. S. All three targets are constantly changing, and these changes in one
theater can spill over in another. For example, waiting on the Iraq theater might
allow the risk in the domestic theater to increase.
On the WMD dimension the Second Gulf War
was a purely technical issue, i.e. tactical. The Second Gulf War was not a strategic
solution to the problem of WMD because there are other states that can attack with WMD, and the resources of a nation state are not even required; many groups have the
capability of using them. (The “yellow cake” controversy, “that controversy that just will not go away,” was typical of the media’s and the Democrat’s
lack of seriousness. Yellow cake is not the last step in the making of a nuclear
bomb but one of the first steps, it is a raw material. Its acquisition would
signify not an immanent threat as Democrat operatives in the media erroneously asserted had been the President’s claim,
but, and as was said at the time, rather a threat that was perhaps a year away. Does
this reassure you?)
I have previously said that there were 12 million
reasons for the Second Gulf War. I also pointed out at the time that the war
was not a strategic answer for biological weapons of mass destruction. Of the
12 million, several million of those reasons are alive and well and living in Israel today, and have a brighter future thanks
to the sacrifices of the Third and Fourth Infantry and the Marine Expeditionary Force and their allied units, (let’s
not forget our British friends). Where do you find these men? And I do not think
we need make any apology to anyone, for anyone of these reasons, least of all to Pat Buchanan.
To American Jews who suspect anti Semitism in the
devaluing of these reasons let me remind you that when my father was fighting NAZI U-Boats in the North Atlantic, not only
was there no Declaration of War, but the Pat Buchanans of that day, Taft of Ohio, Mr. Republican for example, decried any
involvement in Europe’s war or help for the British Empire. (“Fighting
NAZI U-Boats?” It sounds like fiction or a comic. But it also happens to be History. Here is another distortion
of History, the familiar slips into mere symbolism. We lose our connection.)
Another million of the reasons for the Second Gulf
War are buried in the deserts of Iran and Iraq. Imagine the cynicism of those
leaders who eliminated internal dissent by killing off a half million young men on either side. And each had mothers and fathers, more millions of reasons. It
is this use of murder that allows the Moslem dictators to remain in power. For those spoiled in the West it may come as a
surprise to learn that murder works. And on a smaller scale Yasir Arafat stays
in power by murder. He first obtained power by murder. Every time a Palestinian said, “Yes, I think I can live in peace with the Israelis,” he was
visited by Palestinian gun men and was shot dead. How will this cycle of
power by murder be ended if not through strength? The lack of seriousness
can be seen in the formulation of the Middle East Peace question.
Decade after decade the question is put and
the answers usually run like this, ‘get the two sides together, and negotiate.
. . .’ But this answer assumes the question which was asked. Well, yes, if the two sides sit down together and agree to peace then there will be peace. The question is how do you get them
to sit down? The answer here is the same as with any other negotiation. You must first know what your best non negotiated
alternative is. How can Israel live if the other side does not agree to terms?
Once you know this, then the negotiations
become simple. Are the proposed terms better than what could be achieved without
negotiations? This is why the wall, fence, is so important. It is an example of a best non negotiated outcome. The peace
terms must offer Israel something better than this. But of course a fence is
not enough. Iraq represents another non negotiated outcome that can be obtained
without the other side’s agreement. Step by step we obtain the best non
negotiated outcome that can be had. Each step puts a floor on the “peace
negotiations.” The negotiations if and when they happen must at least provide
an outcome as good as can be had without negotiations.
This is fundamental principles of negotiations
101. Why negotiate if what you are being offered is less than what you can achieve
without negotiations? So millions of the reasons for the Second Gulf War
are tied up with the Middle East Peace. It is easy to talk about it, and give
yourself gold medals in Stockholm, but doing something about it that is not so easy as playing media games in America. It is this lack of seriousness that causes one to question where you find these men
who protect you; protect you from yourselves.
And every time an American or British jet took
off to patrol the No Fly Zones and was shot at, or even just painted by radar, there was another reason for the war. Where do you find these men? If at the
time of the armistice the Iraqis had said, “No, we can not agree to this, we retain the right to shoot down your planes,”
the war would have continued. Yet for eight years of Clinton one pilot after
another was put at risk by an ungrateful President and his adoring and equally ungrateful public. Also the million dollar bounty on our pilot’s lives, was by itself, a cause for war.
When the Iraqis attempted to assassinate
Mr. Bush in 1993, that was a cause for war. (We can not have any President of
the U. S. ever given the slightest reason to doubt that he will be protected from foreign despots, precisely because, murder
works. If our presidents can not trust us can we trust them? This is not a question of, ‘if you like the President.’
We can not allow the slightest distance between ourselves and our President, any President.
(Dr. Kissinger has advised that no President should
personally engage in negotiations with a foreign state, because our President is also our head of state, and in the event
of an impasse there would be a breakdown not just in the particular negotiations but in the relations between the two countries. I should like to suggest an additional reason.
One can never trust an agent. It is a common place that Ambassadors are
our Ambassadors only their first year of duty and from then on become the ambassadors of the country to which they have been
assigned. But this question exists with any agent. Did your real estate agent get you the “best” deal, or did they just want to get the commission? As the head of Lloyds once said in response to the question, “Can the Names
trust the syndicates?” : “Of course you expect the mechanic will take better care of his own car than yours.” The President should not undertake negotiations because it is intolerable for there
to be any question as to his intention. When Clinton, for example, “negotiated”
the “Mid East Peace Agreement,” did he do so for America and America’s friend, Israel, or did he simply
want to “get an agreement?” In other words did he put the “agreement”
and its negotiation, i.e. the negotiations themselves, above the interests of America and our friend Israel? I do not know the answer; my point is that the question should never be asked, or rather it should never
be possible for such a question to be asked.)
The attempted assassination of President Bush was
an outrage and a sole and sufficient cause of war. A missile into a Baghdad building
was no response, and for this reason and this reason alone Clinton is a failure both as a man and as a President. Of all the millions of reasons for the war this reason is the easiest for the Middle East to understand
and accept. Of course the son will avenge the wrong done the father. This is irrefutable in the Middle East. President Bush was
quite right to mention it, both for America, but particularly for his Middle Eastern audience.
I note that the President’s father
is still active in public life and appears to hold no grudge against the country that abandoned him when Saddam Hussein tried
to kill him. I find this difficult to understand.
Where do you find such men? (In his last campaign the Clintons accused
him of a war crime. He strafed an enemy war ship and sunk it. Then when armed combatants attempted to make for the shore of
an enemy held island he strafed them too. The killing of fleeing combatants is
not a war crime. It is not a close question.
The standing orders, as posted on a thirty foot by one hundred foot bill board on top of Admiral Nimitiz’s head
quarters were: “Kill Japs, Kill Japs, Kill More Japs.” Why didn’t the media go and ask the Marines, the veterans who had to take enemy occupied islands,
what they think about the Navy pilot who strafed a group of combatants heading for shore.
War crime? Go tell it to the Marines.)
As noted above it is a distortion of History that allows this kind of casual disgrace to go unchallenged.
He risks his life for you in war in the Pacific
and in peace. Serves you all his life.
Is accused of war crimes, wrongly. Then is targeted by his enemy, our
enemy, and you do nothing? And he bares you no grudge? Where do you find such men?
Sean Hannity has said he does not know how anyone
could have had “mixed emotions” on 9-11-02. Sean appears to
have read part of Judgment Day but not the rest. All the betrayals, they mean
nothing to you Sean? A nation that could treat George Bush so badly . .
. or abandoning George Bush when Saddam Hussein tried to kill him. You were ok
So this is the last thing I want to leave
you with. Part of the reason you have difficulty understanding and accepting
what is about to happen to you, is because it is new. However, if that were all
there was then there would be a chance. Instruction still might be possible.
But there is something deeper. Denial. Fundamentally you think, like Sean Hannity, bio warfare will not happen because you are good people. So
that is why I want to show you that you are not such good people. You have betrayed good people all around the globe. You have lived your lives stupidly and selfishly and carelessly. For example, you have 13 million illegals in your country. You
simply can not bring yourselves to make up your minds one way or another. You
And as I said earlier perhaps people have
been living this way for centuries. But bio warfare is going to be something
different. Our new technologies are too powerful now for you to take the first
hit like you did at Pearl Harbor. The new technologies allow for no second chances. The odds are long and getting longer. Earlier
I spoke of three theaters of operation but really there are dozens and the risks are getting greater in each sector. The situation is not hopeless. Technology
is constantly changing and the balance could swing in the direction of the defender.
But without a massive Manhattan Project like program, things look bleak.
In public policy we are always studying things
for the first time. Max Weber said we are always parvenus. We can not become specialist in every field we are involved with because we are involved in every field. We have to learn to separate the important from the less important.
When I first started reading about bio warfare
I kept coming across the story of the Australian rabbits. At first I dismissed
it because specialists often focus on things that seem important in their specialty but which in the “big picture”
are not really so important. I was wrong.
I came to realize that the story of the Australian rabbits is important, the specialists had not over stated its importance.
The European rabbit had no natural enemies
in Australia. So to control the population the farmers introduced a new virus
with which the population had had no prior contact. The rabbits were reduced
The principle of co evolution is fundamental in
Biology. All life on Earth shares a common mother. Think about that, very living thing shares the DNA of our first mother.
We have been swapping genes with one another for 4 billion years. The
viruses included. Also we have been sharing this environment. We have been living with one another for billions of year. Survival
of the fittest does not always mean the most aggressive or violent. The saber
tooth cat evolved out of existence. Or, remember when AIDS first started there
were two forms: an aggressive one and a slower acting one? The aggressive one
died out in the U. S. because it killed off its hosts before they could pass it on.
This is co evolution in practice.
But co evolution does not present a limiting factor
for a virus that is produced in a bio warfare laboratory. This virus will go
on even if it kills off all of its hosts, just as long as the factory is staffed and continues producing the virus. If the virus is genetically engineered to be different, so that it is new to us, like the one that did
in the Australian rabbits, and if it is mass produced and spread, co evolution will not work to limit it. It will kill, and kill, without limit.
We are not talking about genetically engineered
corn. Once again the radicals miss the point.
We are talking about weapons.
Let me describe the battlefield of the IV
World War. The enemy combatants are suicidal.
The main criticism of bio weapons is that they kill everyone so who would want to use them? (As if this were a draw back. However this is no longer a
technical problem. They can be designed to kill discriminately. For example a binary virus released up wind of the Norfolk Naval Base would infect those down wind. As it is only a harmless retro virus it goes undetected. (If you do not have a bio detector, you are the bio detector.) Later, in the Persian Gulf the other half
of the virus is released up wind of a carrier task force. Twelve hours later
the carrier task force runs aground on the coast of Iran. The reactor melts down,
because there is no one on board to tend it, and the molten core drops through the hull of the carrier into the sea bed. All hands dead. However, only the Americans
are dead from the release of the second virus. The locals in both locations,
Virginia and the Persian Gulf, are not harmed. Only those who were in both locations
are killed, as a result of the two viruses combining.) Science fiction? You think so because of the distortions of History.
You think you exercise the same degree of knowledge about this situation as you do about the history drama. But you are wrong. You are like a character in that drama. “Attention, attention, all Jews
are required . . . .”