Aohell

Gaza... Why?

Because, of course.

Hamas chucked missiles at Israel to provoke precisely the sort of ground attack that is happening now. In a few days, Hamas will launch more missiles to let Israel know it did not get all the missiles. Israel will remain in Gaza and its operation there will seem ineffective. If you've been following the Middle East, this should sound familiar, as it's exactly the sort of thing Hezbollah did to Israel in Lebanon. Israel left Lebanon without having defeated Hezbollah.

Hamas has had close ties with Hezbollah, so it's no surprise that they're carrying out a Hezbollah-style operation. For all the US-made rockets that the Israeli Defense Forces will fire into Gazan apartments, Hamas will survive and inflict unacceptable losses on Israel. Israel knows that if it withdraws, it looks weak. Hamas knows that, as well, and knows that Israel must eventually withdraw from Gaza. It cannot remain there indefinitely.

Israel missed its chance to have peace back in 1991. Now it's dealing with a Hamas that knows it can win a war of attrition, instead of the tired old Fatah of Yassir Arafat. Both sides are as bloody-minded as World War One generals, and will not step away from the violence, for fear of looking weak. In the long run, the Palestinians will win through weight of numbers, but only at a terrible civilian cost. The Israelis will lose in the long run, but also only at a terrible civilian cost.

Both sides' political leaders use the violence to perpetrate their power base. Both sides point to their own civilian casualties, rightly, as horrifying outrages. But they then point to the other side's civilian casualties, wrongly, as justifiable consequences for their struggle against evil.

Obama is very tight with the AIPAC. He'll send gobs of cash and material to Israel, but not soldiers. Hamas knows that if they can kill enough Israelis, all the cash and gadgetry in the USA won't save Israel. They're ready to fight this out for another 140 years.

After all, the last time Crusaders set up a state in Palestine, it took the Arabs 200 years to wipe it out - at terrible civilian cost to both sides. So it goes in the Middle East when the major powers pick sides instead of true peace.

Palin on Pakistan

Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires

In the study of World History, Central Asia is an anomaly. There isn't a lot of civilization originating out of there, but a whole lot of civilizations get involved with it. It's not really entirely part of any other region because of all the influences on it. It's also one of the last things empires touch before they fizzle out into the shades of history.

The people of Afghanistan have a saying, "Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans." Consider:

* Medes: take it and then get overthrown by the Achaemenids

* Achaemenids: they start out with Central Asia, but it's only a matter of time for them before Al the Great cleans their clock.

* Alexander the Great: conquers Bactria, dies soon thereafter, empire collapses.

* Selucids: they can't hold the area and hand it over to the Mauryans, then get owned by the Romans.

* Mauryans: They lose Bactria to a Greek rebellion, then fall apart

* Bactria: Does not end well for them. Overrun by nomads. Not a good way to go, at all.

* Indo-Greek Empire: Conquers Bactria, then implodes due to civil war.

* Han China: gets out that way, then collapses.

* Parthia: Takes the region from the Scythians, then loses it in rebellion, then collapses as an empire

* Persia: rises in glory, conquers Central Asia, fights with the Byzantines and then is utterly destroyed by the rise of Islam

* Islamic Caliphate... gets out that way, then the Umayyads fall and their empire collapses.

* Tang Dynasty: undone after a disastrous Central Asian battle.

* Khwarezmids: They proudly conquer Central Asia in 1205. Mongols arrive in 1219, which is bad news for the Khwarezmids...

* Mongols: Like Alexander, they take Central Asia early on, then their empire fractures and fades.

* Timurids: They start off as a Central Asian empire. It does not end well for them, although one of their rulers has a great re-invention as the founder of the Moghul Empire in India... never gets Central Asia back, though...

* Safavids: They take Afghanistan, and then stir up a massive uprising there that results in the Afghans invading Persia and ruining the place... then the Persians rise up and destroy the empire of their Afghan rulers, conquer Afghanistan, then collapse as an empire utterly.

* Durranis: Local dynasty that manages to rule for about 70 years, then collapses due to infighting.

* British: They lose an entire army in Afghanistan in the 1840s and don't take over the place until the 1880s... and then their empire starts to unravel in a series of increasingly successful independence movements.

* Russia: Takes over Central Asia after running out of Siberia and Europe... completely destroyed in revolution soon afterward.

* Soviet Union: Yeah, like *they* had staying power. They didn't even last as long as the Durranis before things started to unravel for them in 1989... a collapse accelerated by their attempt to take Afghanistan.

* Taliban: Nope. They did not win in Afghanistan, and they're still ruining everyone's day over there.

* USA: oooh, this is the raw nerve... but the sad fact remains that when a nation's soldiers are being shot at by weapons soldiers traded to the resistance for drugs, it's not going to win that war.

I admit a bit of a cavalier approach in some of my assessments... stretching points here and there... but it's a nice survey of Central Asia, all the same.

Come Visit Beautiful Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires!

WAR

Draft Deferments

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

History...

I Know Where the Missing Iraqi Weapons Are

190,000 missing weapons in Iraq, go the headlines, not to mention 135,000 missing body armor pieces and 115,000 missing helmets. And I know where they are.

No, I can't go get them, but that's just the way it goes. Anyway, the weapons are in the hands of people who should not have gotten them in the first place: insurgents, terrorists, and criminals. OK, so you're saying, "no duh!" Fair enough. But how they got there is the real story. They could have gotten there from two different flows.

One flow would be from infiltrators in the Iraqi forces. An insurgent, terrorist, or criminal shows up to work one day and grabs a stack of guns when nobody's looking. That's the easiest way to do it. If anyone asks questions, quit and go back to your insurgent, terrorist, or criminal job and let someone else infiltrate.

The second flow would be corruption among those who handle the weapons. They need something the insurgents, terrorists, or criminals got, probably drugs or prostitution, but most likely drugs. This sort of thing happened all the time in Vietnam and Afghanistan and it's not limited to the US forces.

Of course, these would be the unaccounted losses explained. I'd want to take a closer look at the losses that are properly accounted for. In World War 2, Ukrainian resistance fighters would join the Nazi SS division Galizien and then go into battle against the Russians. They'd report massive casualties. In reality, they were faking their death numbers to cover for guys who left that division after getting training and equipment from the Germans. Those "deaths" would free up more slots in the division for Ukrainian resistance fighters and it made that unit look like it had lots of heavy fighting. It did, but nowhere as fierce as reported. Similar things can happen in Iraq.

Then there's the grunt on the field. He wants something the insurgents, terrorists, or criminals have and is willing to trade his gun for that thing. He finds a way to have his gun properly "broken down" so he can get a replacement and the "defective" weapon never gets back for repairs. Maybe it's unaccounted or maybe the accounting is just crapulent at times in the chaos of the front line clerk's offices. But then, the guns wind up in the hands of the people he's fighting.

A veteran of the Afghan War, the Russian one, wrote that when the enemy is shooting at you with your own weapons, your side has lost. We can now confirm that the Iraqis are shooting at us with our own weapons.

Mission Accomplished?

A stated goal behind the US move into Iraq was to bring democracy to that part of the world. The Iraqi parliament voted 85 to 59 to pass a binding resolution that the president of Iraq get their approval before extending the US presence in their nation, and this faction led by Moqtada al-Sadr is inclined to say "no" to the US.

Iraq has a democracy that's willing to stand up to the US. That's pretty darn vibrant. And while the Sunni may see the Shi'a-led government as predatory, the way a group of antelope may view a superior number of lions, that's democracy at its heart.

So the question is, if the Iraqi parliament insists on stuffing the US mandate when it's up for review in December, what will the Bush administration do about it? Bush will be awaiting his successor from the November election (barring some Florida-like situation), but will still be the man in charge at that time.

What Will Be the End in Iraq?

The anti-US forces in Iraq seemed to have learned well the lessons from The Battle of Algiers, as the pro-US forces are increasingly marginalized. But have they learned enough to avoid the violence which continues to wrack post-French Algeria? I don't think so.

Nor do I think a continued US presence in Iraq will benefit that nation in the long run. No matter what, the people there will destroy each other for years to come. All a US presence accomplishes is a pseudo-unity in the face of the occupation.

Watch out.

A modest request...

I would humbly ask that all the attention and "how could this possibly happen?" sort of stories the major US media outlets have expended, are expending, and will expend on both Don Imus and the tragic shootings in Virginia be equalled, at the very least, in attention to the following topics:

• The US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Third world poverty
• Global climate instability
• Human rights issues in general

The stories should focus not just on defining the problem, but about what is needed to work towards a solution. Terrible as Mr. Imus' comments may have been and shocking though the tragedy in Virginia may be, there really are much greater things that should be demanding the attention and mindspace of America.

Thank you.

A Simple Case for Impeaching Bush

If Clinton's behavior warranted impeachment - lying under oath in the Monica Lewinsky investigation - surely Bush's behavior - waging a war without Congressional approval - warrants impeachment.

Down on the Farm

Israel had a recent squabble along its border with Southern Lebanon. It was in territory Lebanon claims but Israel occupies for so-called security reasons.

Based on Israel's occupation of the Shebaa Farms, Hizbollah retains its massive arsenal, destabilizing Lebanon and threatening Israel. If Israel were to give up this small strip of land, Hizbollah would have no justification to remain as an armed party. Seems to me like that would make Israel more secure.

Then again, I'm only a sane human being, unfit to serve in government due to my inability to support insane or immoral policies.