Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
Feeling Brave Today? Juicy Fruit and Other Opinions that Blow GMail Greetings Mr. Big Toe Wedgeville Rotter Bullshit Alarms Sound Camera Wuv A Trust Issue Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed |
9.15.2004
I'll readily admit that when it comes to recognizing military aircraft I am no expert. Other people can pick an F-16 out as it flies overhead. Not me. So when a pilot friend of mine showed me some pictures from a recent airshow I played dumb. In part because I am dumb about certain things; fighter planes being one of those things. I like playing dumb. Its an easy way to get people to impart information to you. Men, in particular, can be goaded into talking about what they know with minimal prodding. Women have used this trick for centuries with dazzling effectiveness. You simply ask a guy about something he feels like an expert about and watch him go. I had ulterior motives of course. I wanted this friend of mine to agree on basic principle to a hypothesis I had already decided upon. So we talked about fighter planes, aircraft technology and the difficulty of piloting modern aircraft. I learned a few interesting facts that I hadn't previously known, like how modern military aircraft are mostly computer controlled due to their cutting edge design and how even though the U.S. will sell the fuselage of a modern fighter jet to an allied nation we will leave out most of the technology to make that plane as lethal as our own. Makes sense. But I asked, wouldn't that mean that even our allies might be a hindrance on the battlefield since our own technology was more advanced then theirs? He agreed. It makes sense. If we're flying fighters equipped with the latest in navigation and targeting do we really want to be in the air with planes that are not? So then I asked. So if our technology is so far more advanced than other nations wouldn't that lead them to give up on ever fighting us in conventional warfare and instead focus on other methods of deterrence? It makes sense. Why would any nation ever think that they would be able to defeat the U.S. in a conventional war? We spend more than most other nations combined and we have developed such lethal technology that we can rain down missiles and bombs on targets from unreachable heights and distances. If you were a leader of a nation you have two choices; you make nice with the United States in the hope of getting your hands on some of that good stuff or you start putting your time and effort into developing some effective deterrence. I leave it up to you, smart people to determine what that means. (Hey stupid people... it means nukes!) Pilot friend agreed that yes, as the U.S. outstrips the rest of the world in conventional military technology we will see other nations further resorting to methods like terrorism, guerilla warfare and other such tactics. I don't claim any inventorship of this idea, as I'm sure there are smarter people trained to think of such things. Those that are still mired in fighting another "Desert Storm" or want to continue to live in the comfortable past of a largely bi-polar, superpower-driven global situation may be in for a rude awakening as the nature of asymmetric conflict unfolds in the coming decade. There are few, if any, countries that can militarily challenge the United States in open combat at the present time. Terrorism is a tactic of this new era of warfare. Imagine for a second that you are an enemy of the United States. How likely is it that you would be willing to strap on an old Soviet era rifle and march out to meet U.S. fighting men head on? Not likely at all. So considering that some people consider fighting the U.S. a matter of some great importance (this, I don't get) then you really have very few options available to you. Cobble that together with religious fervor and you have the makings of a terrorist army. In the last 10 to 15 years, there has been a "changing of the guard" in Middle East terrorism from nominally left-wing, Marxist/socialist, secular terrorist groups to Islamic terrorist groups. Most terrorist groups in the Middle East today are based on an Islamic ideology. There are a few of the left over secular, Marxist Palestinian groups such as George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP), but most of the secular Marxist groups were discredited and disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union.15 One aspect of this Islamic trend has been the inclusion of "transnational" Islamic extremists -- veterans of the fighting in Afghanistan, with combat experience, who have joined terrorist groups in various countries around the region. Many scholars believe that the levels of violence associated with "holy" terror will be much higher than that of their secular counterparts. According to them, the secular groups used to set limits on their targets, excluding targets such as women and children that they believed would be counterproductive to their cause. In contrast, religious groups believe they have a divine mission and that their actions are morally justified and necessary. The killing of the enemies of God becomes a religious commandment. For them, the ends justify the means. This attitude could justify limitless violence on target groups outside of their own religion. huh? |
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
About Me
Any Box |
||
Dissolve into Evergreens
|