Having trouble viewing this email? Read it on our website.
<http://www.SovereignMan.com>
Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field
Date: January 25, 2011
Reporting From: Santiago, Chile
US General George S. Patton is often credited with saying "No poor
bastard ever won a war by dying for his country." Perhaps Patton was
correct. But a lot of poor bastards had a significant impact on security
policies by blowing themselves up for their cause.
Yesterday's suicide attack at Domodedovo airport in Moscow was another
stark reminder that there are people in this world who have (a) extreme
commitment to their cause; (b) the will to die for their beliefs; and
(c) the twisted moral compass to justify the deaths of others as
necessary and legitimate.
These three ingredients are a dangerous combination, and unfortunately
they exist in mass quantities among fanatics who have lost sight of
their humanity.
I don't want to get into the chicken or egg argument right now about
whether such fanaticism would exist without authoritarian, imperialistic
arrogance on the part of major world governments... but suffice it to
say that, with each attack on civilian targets, governments step up
their military/police efforts in the 'war on terror.'
It's interesting how government defense planners always seem to be
training their troops to fight the last war. For example, the WW2-style
training in the US that lasted for decades which prepared troops to
fight against Soviet forces proved largely irrelevant in the jungle
warfare environment of Vietnam, or the desert in Kuwait.
Subsequent jungle warfare and traditional desert warfare training proved
largely irrelevant in the 1990s peacekeeping operations in the Balkans,
and training for peacekeeping operations proved largely irrelevant for
Iraq's counterinsurgency operations.
As the military now focuses its training on preparing troops for
yesterday's counterinsurgency operations, I suspect defense planners are
largely ignoring tomorrow's threats, like cyber- and economic warfare.
Similarly, every time there is an attack on civilian targets,
governments come out in force against the threat. When someone tries to
explode his shoe, everyone has to take his/her shoes off. When someone
tries to explode his underwear, everyone has to go through a body scanner.
The Russian bombing yesterday proved that these reactive tactics are
completely ineffective, akin to training to fight the last war.
Soft targets are everywhere, and if government agencies make it too
difficult to blow up a plane, attackers will blow up the airport. If
they can't blow up an airport, they'll blow up a bus station... sports
stadium... grocery store... you name it.
Each reactive policy measure only serves to solidify the attackers'
convictions, erode the freedoms of the innocents, and divide the nation
into to distinct sides-- those who would rather have their freedom and
take a chance on safety, and those who are willing to relinquish their
freedom in exchange for the illusion of security.
Politicians will always side with the latter, expanding their domain and
redefining 'security' so that it encompasses the widest possible range
of human activities.
Going to a ball game? Security. A nightclub? Security. No more financial
privacy? It's for your security. Listening to your phone calls? Also for
your security. Protesting against the politicians? You're a security
risk. 90-year old woman in a wheelchair? Frisk her, she's a security
risk. "Attention WalMart shoppers: rat out your neighbor." - Homeland
Security.
These measures are all readily accepted by society because voters will
ask for, and allow, these types of politicians and policies.
After the 2004 Beslan hostage crisis in Russia in which hundreds of
hostages and children were killed, the Russian government vastly
expanded the powers of its law enforcement agencies, asserted its
control over the media, and even unilaterally replaced certain elected
federal positions with executive appointees.
Russian society digested these measures in stride, still shocked from
the massacre in Beslan.
In response to Monday's bombing, officials in Russia are already talking
about enhancing their security procedures, which will certainly include
new government powers. I also doubt that the effects will stop with
Russia's security posture.
The Chinese government already reacted by beefing up security at
Beijing's airport, deploying more police dogs throughout the terminals.
I wouldn't be surprised if governments in North America and Europe used
this event as an excuse to initiate their own measures, going further
down the slippery slope.
None of these steps really matter in the big picture; loosely organized
suicide bombers cannot be subdued with conventional forces or security
measures... and for the regular folks who just want to go on living
their lives, it's like being caught in the middle of a battlefield
without a weapon.
I'm reminded of Herbert Hoover's 1928 winning presidential campaign
slogan, "A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage." Perhaps the
modern analogy is "a government agent on every corner, a wiretap on
every phone." It is, after all, for our security.
Until tomorrow,
Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com
Did you receive this email from a friend? Sign Up
<http://www.sovereignman.com> to receive Notes From The Field.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
