An in-depth study of the Middle East Region will reveal an enigma wrapped in a hard shell casing of bizarre, with a soft center of “huh?” In that part of the world, truth can often be a real moving target, often spun to meet the needs of the moment, and hidden within a religious message, (often spread to the illiterate by a chose few, who are also pretty illiterate). These lunatic notions run the gamut from the Holocaust didn’t ever happen, all the way to September 11, 2014 was an operation of the USAF and Israel, (to deliberately draw the US into the region for war against all Muslims.) Some of this craziness would be funny if it weren’t so damn serious in the impact and problems they breed. Sadly, I’ve run into a group here in the United States that have taken off in a similar direction. (Sovereign Citizens, who frankly have a view of the world that is equally bizarre.) Their mantra runs from Government conspiracies of all stripes, to the notion that all contrails of passing aircraft are actually “Chem Trails,” of mind altering drugs meant to facilitate governmental mind control. Most of us look at these notions and just shake our heads, but to some it is quite real. Is it any wonder that the world is such a dangerous place? When you’re surrounded by those who have no concept of the truth, then sorting the sublime from the ridiculous can be a real challenge. ~ Michael S. Pauley
If you have never seen Monty Python’s Life of Brian, I would highly recommend it. Sure it is blasphemous to some, but there is an interesting lesson to be learned too. For example, in one scene, various groups for the “liberation of ..... (fill in the blank),” meet in an underground tunnel on their way to commit different acts of sabotage against the Romans. The scene makes much of the various names of these groups, which seemed to change depending on the phase of the moon, or someone’s mood, and the clash of their ideologies. How does this relate? Well, for those of us watching the Middle East region over the last 30 plus years, there is a huge kernel of truth to the humor.
An in-depth study of the Middle East Region will reveal an enigma wrapped in a hard shell casing of bizarre, with a soft center of “huh?” In that part of the world, truth can often be a real moving target, often spun to meet the needs of the moment, and hidden within a religious message, (often spread to the illiterate by a chose few, who are also pretty illiterate). These lunatic notions run the gamut from the Holocaust didn’t ever happen, all the way to September 11, 2014 was an operation of the USAF and Israel, (to deliberately draw the US into the region for war against all Muslims.) Some of this craziness would be funny if it weren’t so damn serious in the impact and problems they breed. Sadly, I’ve run into a group here in the United States that have taken off in a similar direction. (Sovereign Citizens, who frankly have a view of the world that is equally bizarre.) Their mantra runs from Government conspiracies of all stripes, to the notion that all contrails of passing aircraft are actually “Chem Trails,” of mind altering drugs meant to facilitate governmental mind control. Most of us look at these notions and just shake our heads, but to some it is quite real. Is it any wonder that the world is such a dangerous place? When you’re surrounded by those who have no concept of the truth, then sorting the sublime from the ridiculous can be a real challenge. ~ Michael S. Pauley
0 Comments
Something that nobody has ever adequately explained to me is this notion that we’ve fought all these different wars since September 11, 2014. I thought that when we launched our War on Terror, in response to September 11, 2014, that it was one war. Sure we’ve had campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, but we’ve also dealt with issues in the Philippines, Malaysia, and other parts of the globe. I’m sure I’m being naive, but now that we’re faced with ISIL, isn’t this the culmination of things that would naturally be a part of our War on Terror? They have forces in Lybia, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq. Some will tell you that they can and have reached into Mexico, parts of Europe and even here in the United States. The other day, some of them came out of Pakistan and attacked an Iranian Border Checkpoint.
Some pundits argue that because we were “looking for WMD” that Iraq was a different war, and therefore the war on Iraq wasn’t about the War on Terror. I agree that is a good argument, but for me it just isn’t persuasive. What is persuasive is that Al Qaida, regardless of franchise, form, or location, is the creature of an ideology. That ideology is what we’ve been fighting for lo these 13 years, and we’re still fighting it today. We were, and still are, concerned that WMD, that includes bio, chemical, and nuclear weapons or components, can be proliferated from regimes like Saddam, or Assad’s, or even “little” Kim in North Korea. Missile technology, and other weapons have most certainly followed that course. (Ask anyone in Israel.) Now looking at ISIL, I hear some say that it just isn’t that serious or large of a threat, and that this is all media driven. Again, let’s look at the facts. Sure, it can be argued that the Al Qaida “prime” was more adept at global terror operations, and that ISIL is more of a thug conventional force limited to a region of the world. Still, this to me is merely a variation on a theme. The skill sets that made Al Qaida Prime dangerous have also proliferated from the elements of Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. If you think that the disagreements between Shia and Sunni will keep them off our shores, then again, that notion is delusional. Certainly, nobody questions that in our own country we disagree about how to do things, but that doesn’t make any of us less American, nor does it mean we can’t come together against a common enemy. Face it, the one time the Shia and Sunni populations don’t have a problem coming together is when you raise the question of Israel, or the US, or even the West for that matter. Again, we get back to the common ideology of all these groups/franchises, and while it is inconsistent with the actual teachings of a real religion, it is consistent with a tribal mentality of “us vs. them.” While ISIL and Al Qaida may have taken the Islamic religion as their basis for their actions, it still boils down to the reality that so long as that ideology of hate exists, then we will be threatened. President Bush noted that this was a danger, and that it would be a long, often unseen war fought around the globe. I think history is now showing this to be correct. He has spoken of the Axis of evil, and guess what. We’re now seeing that all Presidents, regardless of political affiliation, will likely be dealing with this for quite a while into the future. If you really want to see it end, then I suggest we work on the elimination of the ideology, since that is the root cause of what I see as the continuation of the War on Terror! How to do that will always be a source of discussion. In the end though, we can either eliminate it through education or through force, but make no mistake, it must be eliminated. ~ Michael S. Pauley Today I just want to give a brief homage to the men and women who are part of the force protection forces around the world. Their job is often difficult, and made even more so by the amount of terrain they must cover globally. Think about it. The bad guys love anniversaries. This means that things like September 11, 2014, are known as potential target dates for them. Sounds simple enough, except for one little issue. When does September 11th begin, when you are concerned with force protection around the globe. For the planners in Washington, this means that starting on September 10th, they need to keep their guard up, and this remains in place until the sun sets on September 11, 2014, which for those in Washington is sometime on September 12th, talk about your long day. This dynamic comes up in my book as well, where the bad guys, (in my case the Gomers), follow the twilight line around the globe to spread their havoc. These global issues mean that for someone trying to run an operation that spans the planet, the sun literally never sets nor does it rise. Just a little food for thought, and the real reason that the people running the communications centers, and other facilities dedicated to force protection, win huge awards from me. ~ Michael S. Pauley
The last weeks have been interesting, but I want to step back a minute, and focus on something said before the President’s speech the other evening. About a week or so ago, a Joint Statement was released from the NATO Summit that had something interesting in it. As a second goal in fighting ISIL, it was posited that NATO wanted to “Stop[...] the flow of foreign fighters.” I think that is great in theory, but what if....... What if we didn’t cut off the flow, and what if we allowed as many of them into that area as possible. Wouldn’t that make it easier to destroy them all? Like removal of a cancer, it might help to have them all in one spot, making the surgery far more successful. Something similar came up during World War II. While many panicked during the Battle of the Bulge, some were delighted that the German Army had decided to get into a spot where they could be destroyed in detail. Just a thought, since as it stands, even if you cut off the flow of these guys, you’re not cutting off their desire to cause harm and spread evil. By cutting off the flow, I personally believe that you are only making sure that we won’t know where they all are located around the world. This means that the ideology of terror and evil will remain, and you then still have to concern yourself with what they might be doing locally. Nope, I’d love to have them all in one spot, to me that just makes the job simpler and more clear cut as to goals and rules of engagement. Just my two cents. ~ Michael S. Pauley
Over the last week, I’ve ranted about the media, now it is time to move onto something with a little less controversy. Who are we kidding, I got nothing. Putin is not so subtly threatening us with Nukes; ISIL wants to make more videos of useless gore; and, people around the globe are struggling to make sense of all the chaos. Meanwhile, there are hearings and interviews about Benghazi, and much discussion about several past September 11th events, and how it relates to the upcoming 9/11. In other news, NATO had a big Summit, and while there was much chest pounding and leaf throwing, with the dawn of a new week, many Americans are still wondering from where, and from whom, the next blow will come. It is often said around here that one of the most heinous of old world curses was, “may you live in interesting times.” Well for most of us, we appear to be living that curse. Then again, are we worse off than say 70 to 100 years ago?
Looking back through history, you can take several periods of time and see that maybe we aren’t any different than we were those decades ago. After all, at one point in the 1930s, we were engaged in a slow recovery from a depression, while Europe was especially hard hit with rampant inflation and the spread of fascism. Meanwhile in Asia, Japan was running roughshod over China, and we were hearing about the Rape of Nanking, the sinking of the USS Panay. All of this was about the same time we were dealing with the annexation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and the collapse of the Versailles Treaty. The only difference between then and now is that we’re hearing about things faster, and with greater stridency. The names have changed, the alliances are different, but the concepts are with us regardless of decade. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t find comfort in any of this, especially since to me, we’re just repeating history. Knowing this, I would find far greater comfort in knowing that this time we’re going to do something without waiting for the worst to force us to do something. We shouldn’t need a December 7th or a September 11th to awaken from our torpor and hope that the world will “do the right thing” without us. Unfortunately, many with the power to stop things early, before the costs become too high in lives, appear to have never read a history book. I’m not saying that this is a time for bombastic action, but it clearly isn’t a time for sitting on thumbs either. There are a lot of options in the global/historical playbook, but the one we know that absolutely doesn’t work is appeasement....... ~ Michael S. Pauley NATO, or the North American Treaty Organization, was created by a treaty for the protection of Europe and the west from the Soviet Union and their “Warsaw” pact nations. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the alleged end of the Cold War, NATO has wandered the planet in search of a larger meaning. Meanwhile, the individual nations from Europe have allowed their military budgets to fall lower and lower, to offset the expenditure of their domestic agendas. Sure, they have engaged in some operations, such as Afghanistan, but largely, this just hasn’t had the same feeling of urgency since the old USSR left us. Now, we’re seeing a resurgence. Eastern Europe has brought life back into an older organization, and the Europe that has so long neglected their military is starting to see a need to re-tool, reorganize, and regroup. Newer nations, formerly under the old umbrella of the Warsaw Pact, are now seeking membership. As NATO grows, so will the bureaucracy and arguments, since there will be the inevitable clashes among the varying agendas, and self interests, of the individual nations comprising this now larger membership. Still, now there is meaning, and a real need to evaluate the world threat, even beyond that of terrorism. Congratulations, Mr. Putin, since you have single handedly done what nobody else could do. You’ve given Europe a focus and sense of defensive purpose that they haven’t had in years. I just hope to hell that it won’t come down to the actual use of that purpose. ~ Michael S. Pauley
I had a friend some years ago that used to say, “One monkey don’t make no show!” Obviously, he was making reference to the fact that no operation should be reliant on one person, and the notion that there is nobody that can’t be replaced. I would say to a large extent, this is quite true. Usually there is always someone that can step up and take over in your absence. Still, you look through history, and sometimes the show is the damn Monkey. If Hitler had been eliminated during the beer hall putsch of November 8, 1923, would things have turned out differently for Europe in the 1930s and 1940s? What if Stalin had never existed? Would there still have been pogroms, and purges in Russia? Like most “what if” questions, there are no accurate answers, since that is not how it happened. All we can do is a “best guess,” which renders these questions little more than either conversation starters at a professorial dinner party, or the basis for an alternative history book.
Still, I love a good guess, so I’m thinking that the answer about Hitler would be that someone else might well have stepped up and done a different kind of damage, but damage nonetheless. Many of the players were in place, and instead of Hitler, it could well have been a guy named General Kurt von Scheleicher. (See The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, W. L. Shirer, 1959, at page 150). General Scheleicher was by all accounts a sneaky power monger, who was quite dangerous. Would he have established a military dictatorship? Probably, if given half a chance he would have done so, and eventually, he would have launched a war. In fact, for the world at large, he would have been as, or perhaps more, dangerous than the schmuck we got. As for Stalin, there were countless scoundrels waiting in the wings, and in a cut throat society, especially during hard times, there never seems to be a shortage of vermin to step up and take control. What if? Simply put, the “what if” is likely not going to be all that different from the “what actually happened,” at least when it comes to the ultimate conclusion. This just sets up the question for us today, which is simply, “if not Putin, then whom?” ~ Michael S. Pauley The military is notorious for using initials and terms that often are misleading by their very nature. One of my favorite examples is LIC or the Low Intensity Conflict. As future contingency planning is done, one of the primary considerations is “what kind of war or conflict are we considering?” From this concept comes terms such as LIC, as opposed to HIC, (High Intensity Conflict), or even (MIC), Medium Intensity Conflict, that all logically flow easily from the pen. Contingency planning is vital, and these terms are equally vital, but not always logical to the lay person. The old adage of “no plan survives first contact with the enemy” is quite true. Historically, things that might have started out as Low Intensity can very well evolve into something far worse. World War I comes most immediately to mind, but there are other examples, to be sure.
Even as a young soldier, I was always struck by the term “low intensity.” This always seemed a little misleading to me, since it always sounded more like an exercise than a war, yet things like Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and even Afghanistan are, or were, considered to be Low Intensity conflicts. Casualties are just as serious, but over time there are just not as many. After all, totaling all 12 years of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve lost fewer soldiers than we did in one battle during World War II (Okinawa, Tarawa, D-Day, to name a few). The level of intensity isn’t drawn from casualties, but instead it encompasses more basic concepts. Items such as air superiority, types of weapon systems employed, sea lane control, and lots of other factors go into this analysis, as to whether it is low intensity or not. Sadly though, if you’re one of the casualties, there is nothing “low intensity” about a conflict. Now if you’re even mildly confused, the last High Intensity Conflicts for the United States were World War II and at least the initial stages of Korea. From then on, we’ve controlled the air space above the battlefield, the transportation and supply lines, and the sea lanes to and from each conflict. In other words, the battlefield wasn’t saturated by highly intense enemy activity at all levels, hence these conflicts met the definition of a “low intensity conflict.” I only point all this out, because while things in Eastern Europe may not appear to affect us directly, and while many would think it is a “low intensity” encounter, I can assure you that if the wrong move is made by anyone, it could evolve quite rapidly into something far worse. Is there really a potential for a High Intensity Conflict in Europe? Absolutely, since we are now facing a potential foe with determination and the capability to do its level best to deny us airspace, lines of transportation and supply, and the sea lanes. Moreover, they can employ weapons systems that will deny and saturate a battlefield on a level not seen since World War II. So, what makes this all especially unique is that for the first time since the Cold War ended, we’ll be facing off with someone that actually has the capability to make our war look different. Right now, if we’re not careful, we could be on the edge of a potential High Intensity Conflict, which is something we haven’t seen as a Nation since 1952. ~ Michael S. Pauley “Back in the day” is a famous catch phrase, but sometimes it can be a good starting point. Last week it was announced that China is deploying an ocean floor surveillance network to track submarines that are transiting the South China Sea. For those of us who remember things like the Cold War, this is a mighty familiar idea that worked. During the 1950s, the United States developed and used a similar system known as SOSUS. It was the Sound Surveillance System, which started off in the Bahamas, and eventually spread throughout the Atlantic Ocean. This system proved to be a highly useful and viable way to track submarine movements throughout the Atlantic. In fact, it allowed us to track much of the Soviet Navy as it would poke around and patrol in our direction. (If you’ve read Tom Clancy, you are probably already familiar with this system, so I won’t go get into great detail, even if many of the workings are now declassified.) There is little doubt that from “Back in the Day” the Chinese Navy, or People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), have now come up with a pretty good “old” working idea. The real point of today is that, assuming their system works as well as our old one, then this could be a real headache for those who are going to have to deal with it in the future. I’m also pretty sure that our allies in Japan, the Philippines, and around the rest of the Pacific Rim, can’t be too happy about this new development. To me, this is a good indicator that China is finally getting very serious about its Navy, and their capability to engage in effective Anti-Submarine Warfare or (ASW). ~ Michael S. Pauley
Last week I ended with a posting that referred to the “Big Stick” diplomacy of Theodore Roosevelt. A footnote of this diplomacy was the dispatching of the “Great White Fleet” for its around the world trek. While it took several years to complete, these somewhat out of date ships, many harking back to the Spanish American War, were able to coal, re-provision, and show the world that combat power could be projected over distances that were unheard of prior to their 1907 cruise. Today, we still are projecting that power at sea, using different energy sources and with greater speed, but that is far from the end of the story. At the time of the Great White Fleet, Japan was already fresh from their victory over the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war. Ethnic confrontations between Japanese immigrants and citizens on our west coast were growing, and relations were becoming quite strained between our nations. Japan felt that because of the racial tensions and poor treatment of their own citizens, that the United States was becoming a problem on their Pacific Ocean. It was against this posturing that Theodore Roosevelt dispatched the fleet. While undertaking some social reform to resolve things here, the fleet was sent as a reminder to the Japanese that we could project our power, and weren’t afraid to do so in a pinch. It was from this showing of the stick, and the use of the domestic carrot, that the situation was defused. This lasted through the First World War, and on into the late 1930s. Something to ponder, as we move forward in our relations around the world. ~ Michael S. Pauley
|
AuthorMichael S. Pauley is a Navy brat and an old soldier who served in all three components of the United States Army. Living in Lexington, South Carolina, Michael is now a practicing attorney and member of the United States Naval Institute and the American Legion, Post 154, Tybee Island, Georgia. Archives
June 2021
Categories
All
|