previous post next post  

H&I* Fires, 28 FEB 2007

By Denizens on February 28, 2007 | | Comments (22)

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

************************
Beinart now says it is guilt too. It is that simple.
--
Of course going anywhere and going often makes it hard to be able to handle the next thing down the pipe. Such would still be true if we’d attacked DPRK or Iran instead of Iraq, and if we had the military sized as the Service Chiefs have asked for the last 20 years while we attacked them instead of Iraq. Just as going to Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans made it hard to meet NATO and other commitments.

That there can be one too many eggs to juggle (with the implication that Iraq is one too many eggs) isn’t the best question. Why so few eggs before we peter out, if we’re defacto Globocop as we have been since the inception of NATO, is a much better one.

Makes you wonder if people really knew what they were doing during budget and manpower arguments in years past. Also makes me wonder if some people are doing this now because someone without a D next to their name isn’t ‘King of America’ while others make light of it because someone with an R next their name is ‘King of America’ right now.
--
News from Afghanistan: The destruction of the poppy crops doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect, when it's being done at all.
--ry(made all neat and clean now. Oops.)
**********************************
Well, isn’t this special. Dr. Don’t Mention and Elephant says Bush wants to use tactical nuclear Tomahawk cm to attack Iranian nuclear facilities because Bush, amongst others, has said all options are on the table and the US has never signed a No-First-Use agreement. It is FUN to operate in a vacuum when you do these things. Everything is available and you’re unconstrained by actual goals and national policy. It’s such fun! It’s so easy!

Sometimes it’s best to actually study the subject before you go off screaming, ‘Bush is going to start a nuclear war!’ Just being smart doesn’t make you a polymath with a deep grasp of everything you know.

Do you have to destroy something to put it out of commission? Is mission kill sufficient? Is offline for 2 months to a year sufficient for national policy goals? What are the national goals wrt Iranian nuclear weapons research? None of these questions is asked. Just straight to ‘those batiches are going to employ nuclear weapons because we know he’s a Nazi!’

And why are these guys taken seriously? I can only guess ignorance.
--ry
********************************

Excellent little bit on office sycophants. -the Armorer

********************************
I got this from the Angel Forum. A soldier gave his life twice. Once in service to his country (actually serving in two branches, Navy and Army) and once when he donated his heart.

You can tell it was his way of doing things. His dad was quoted as telling him not to volunteer for anything, just do your time and come home. That sounds like a lot of parents. But, like all children, they have to make their own way and this soldier volunteered for duty on his "day off" that eventually led to his death. I truly believe, that these are the best of us. - Kat

********************************

L'eggo my Lego! Brab, BCR, get yer loons under control! -the Armorer

********************************

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

Share This Article:

Categories:

22 Comments

By WillyShake on February 28, 2007 9:33 AM
Glad I'm not the only one who wants to bang my head against a wall when I hear/see/read smart people go Looney Tunes over Dubya. ...guess I'm in good company. ...but then again, rather than simply being frustrated (as I increasingly am), you offer some instructive remarks. In that sense, you're in the company of folks like Mark Steyn, as I note HERE. ...of course, Mark does it with that unparalleled rapier-like wit of his--and you with the brute force of an artillery barrage of questions:
Do you have to destroy something to put it out of commission? Is mission kill sufficient? Is offline for 2 months to a year sufficient for national policy goals? What are the national goals wrt Iranian nuclear weapons research? None of these questions is asked. Just straight to ‘those batiches are going to employ nuclear weapons because we know he’s a Nazi!’
Well done...I'm glad I'm on your side! All the best. ~Willyshake
 
By Trias on February 28, 2007 10:56 AM
"Our words are backed by Nuclear Weapons!" The call that has to be made regarding Iran's Nuclear stance is to call why Iran can't have them and others can. At the end of the day each nation feels it has a right to Nuclear Weapons if it wishes just as the US and many other nations that already have them do. The argument has to be strong and cover Pakistan which i feel will be the hardest thing to do. Bush obliquely made such an argument (no matter how well or badly) in his Axis of Evil speech but I feel the points and conclusions are not yet properly put forth at an official level. One of the reasons the world and citizens at home are not properly supportive is the ideas behind the actions are put together like a Code Pink support the troops rally. It's confusing and divisive. Now if it's decided that Iran cannot have such weapons then all cards are on the table even the very nuclear weapons Iran so desires (though i suspect not delivered in such a method). But a stoneager strike is overkill and everyone knows it so this guy is letting his fear and excitement about Bush overrule his brain. However we could well restrict every supportive resource Iran has. Embargo it as completely as possible. Cut the roads, water electricity to the site bomb it kill all the scientists and engineers and skilled workers involved as much as this is distasteful to me. Bomb every component making factory mine and warehouse. if needed kill the economy and infrastructure. The price of this is high very high in human terms so it's important to know why we are to do it. I'm hinting here at the price in human terms of not doing it. And there are perhaps other solutions. But if the argument is well made then do it and it'll be understood ignoring a superpower's demands right or wrong is folly of the highest order.
 
By bad cat robot on February 28, 2007 11:51 AM
I did not know about the Sacred Legos controversy. I feel strongly on the issue of Legos, since when I was young we were too poor to afford them -- but my *sister*, on the other hand, arrived when the cash flow was better and SHE GOT THEM. I have guilted her into giving me Legos for presents ever since ;-) As far as the local loons go, we have a severe infestation. Dart guns just aren't going to do the job. I'm thinking setting up a "protest reinactment" of SugarButton's Great Pot-plant Massacre, only substituting aerosol Thorazine for the defoliant. Bill, do you know where we can rent a suitable hellaflopper with spray boom? We'll let you fly it...
 
By Sigivald on February 28, 2007 1:16 PM
Is the idea that if the US had signed a no-first-use agreement that that would someone prevent the US from actually doing it? If so, one wonders what the mechanism of action he has in mind by which signing a slip of paper with no enforcement agent behind it somehow actually precludes launching a missile? I've noticed it's a strange world some people live in, since they evidently think, by their own statements, complaints, and demands, that a symbolic gesture or words somehow prevents an action they dislike. Like all agreements and treaties, such an "agreement" isn't worth the paper it's written on if it ever becomes more useful to renege than to obey it. (One is inclined to try and remind them that a contract or a treaty is only powerful if there's an enforcement mechanism; the problem being that between world powers, and especially between the US and anyone else, there aren't any to speak of, apart from war or economic blockade, neither of which anyone will be using against the US.)
 
By KCSteve on February 28, 2007 6:28 PM
Hey John! I just saw a promo for FutureWeapons on the Discovery Channel - apparently on Monday's episode they're going to play with the new M177 Howitzer. You might want to check your schedule and catch that one.
 
By BillT on February 28, 2007 8:21 PM
Bill, do you know where we can rent a suitable hellaflopper with spray boom? We'll let you fly it... Spray booms, plural. Gotta keep the lateral c.g. within pretty strict tolerances or you can faw down, go *kerblooey*, ya know. We did the local manufacture thing with ours. Pretty much any helicolopiter is suitable for ag-work such as application of demagogicides. You find the aircraft and I'll design the applicator. Although you might derive more satisfaction from direct fire with an M5 Disperser (scroll down to the thing that looks like a stand-alone flamethrower -- because it can do *that*, too...) By the way, do each of those teachers live in the same *style* house as their fellows? The same *size* house as their peers? In the same *neighborhood*? Have they petitioned the city to make suitable lofts available for their commune? Do the teachers' union reps walk on their hind legs and proclaim that all teachers are equal but some teachers are more equal than others? Okay, so I'm pulling your L'Eggs...
 
By OD on February 28, 2007 11:48 PM
'The destruction of the poppy crops doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect...' Gee, nobody saw that coming.
 
By ry on March 1, 2007 12:18 AM
So, what's the sol'n then Owen? We talked about this about a month ago and you weren't around then. So what's the sol'n? Drug trade empowers the terrorists as they act as 'stand over men'. Taking the opium fields out empowers the terrorists too. Where's your 'win' sol'n bro? I think I'm with Chief Bill. Ambush the farkers when they come to pull their standover schtick. It isn't nice. It'll piss off the farmers in the short term. BUt the long term it instills stability and shows that the security forces can actualy secure Joe and Jane Afghani to the local farmer(in his region, of course). What to do with the actual opium though? I haven't the foggiest.
 
By OD on March 1, 2007 12:50 AM
Ry, I'd say the only solution that makes sense from a military point of view is to buy the poppy crop yourselves. Let the Dogmatic Enforcement Agency in and the NATO presence is doomed.
 
By ry on March 1, 2007 2:11 AM
Well, since you weren't around when we did this, yeah, we talked about that(many of us saying we should buy this years crop). But you can't keep buying it, and have national policy on different issues synch up which they should.(This is where John says I told you so about the Drug War.) Need a longer term sol'n. How do you co-opt the farmers without dismantling drug enforcement against opium/illicit drugs(not that that can't be discussed, but it isn't something likely to happen, Democrats or Republicans in the drivers seat.)? And if you followed the link, only about 10% of the fields have been destroyed. The guys in the field just aren't doing it because of resistance by the farmers.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 6:00 AM
I'm with Owen on this one. Buy the stuff, sell it to the pharma companies. That will buy you time to try to figure out a crop that will be economically useful. Heh. You of all people, Ry, with your emphasis on Realpolitik, should be able to wiggle behind this one. Letting the Drug Warriors in (especially our drug warriors, don't they have enough to do around here or down south?) without having an alternative to offer is not going to help the situation. Interesting how the drug issue splits the conservative side - these same discussions occur regularly at NRO.
 
By BillT on March 1, 2007 6:03 AM
An Afghan farm is a pretty hardscrabble operation. The soil, with the exception of those areas where snowmelt runoff settles and deposits nutrients leached from higher ground, is lousy for growing most crops. Poppies will grow on hillsides, they aren't labor-intensive to cultivate, and they produce something in a single season worth cash that allows the farmers to buy the things they can't grow. Substituting legumes would probably work, but you'd have to establish the market for them. I doubt Lima beans would be a big hit in the region...
 
By Oldloadr on March 1, 2007 7:05 AM
BillT - Chick peas. The whole ME is crazy about humus (made from chick peas) and it's high in protein... goes great with some olive oil and flat bread.
 
By ry on March 1, 2007 7:07 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Buy it, sell it to pharma. Sounds good. But have you had to deal with the paper work for purity?(and the nonsense about not buying sweatshop, environmentally friendly and sustainable, blah, blah, blah...) Sounds easy. Sounds good. Not sure that it ultimately is. Tight regulations of the industry, while necessary, don't allow for improvisation. But we can't continue to buy for a long period of time(going on five years now). Or in excess of pharmaceutical need. 1. It's expensive stuff. Paying below black market won't work. cigarettes have a black market and they're cheap by comparison. So you're back to blackmarkets which helps the terrs more than it helps us or the Afghanis. 2. It keeps them from doing something helpful for the national economy. Real little prosperity generation in such a short term deal. It's a short term fix for the farmer. Real short sided. And I'm not saying we should have DEA in there...yet. Yet another damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Ideological purity is such a non-starter in geopolitics.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 7:18 AM
Ry, gottit. We won't be able to make money at it. We may end up having to dispose of it some other way. Let me put it a little more clearly for you. We buy the current crop. And no, I don't give a flying finagle about the purity and other carp - that's all noise. We get them to plant something else (be it chickpeas or whatever). We then pay the difference between the poppy crop and whatever the cash crop is - and we experiment with finding an economic balance and model that will work. No different from what we do here. SWWBO and I have been looking at buying an acreage so we can move the horses to where we are, and I can step off the back deck and shoot without scaring or endangering my neighbors. Much of the available land is agricultural. And the sales pitches include how using leasing and gov't "don't grow anything" subsidies will essentially pay the cost of the buy. We can debate that policy, too - but regardless, it's a model. You're being uncharacteristically negative on this subject. Okay, we didn't lay out the 5 Year Plan. I'm not farking competent to do so. I did lay out an alternative approach, however.
 
By Trias on March 1, 2007 8:42 AM
I agree with the buy it policy. It's very much short term. Ry is right in painkiller manufacturing consumption, not about purity which he should well know, but about the regulations and their lack of flexibility. At one level you have to ask the question do you want to win the war on drugs or the war on terrorism? That's simplistic but it does bear thinking about. Buy it can't last. We have farmers terrorists and a high priced easy to grow crop. That's a really difficult situation.
 
By OD on March 1, 2007 12:06 PM
Well I'm no agronomist but I suspect coffee might grow in many of these places. And I think it's a commodity whose demand will rise, because the global middle class gets bigger every year. So I would pay market price plus 20% right now - which isn't all that high at this pre-refined stage - for the poppies. I would also specify feasible alternative crops I was willing to buy and would offer double the poppy price per acre's worth of them. I'd also offer free seeds and other technical help to those planting the alternative crop, such as centrally-kept tractors that can be loaned out. This also engages the farmers in a cooperative project. Those who stuck with poppies would have to fend for themselves. The alternative crop must have some real market value so the bottom doesnt fall out completely when the program winds down in future years. It would be necessary to build a distribution-collection-export network or the heroin smugglers will take that job over. As a counterinsurgency plan this has huge advantages. Even as a counter-drug plan it has some. Because it only rewards the poppy growers, while cutting everyone at later stages of the heroin production and delivery process out of the loop. The only people who couldn't be brought in are highly organised farming collectives who do their own early refining. But I suspect those people are already hardened insurgents anyway. The cost might seem high, but it's actually very low compared to the military expenses. The money being spent on warfighting in Iraq - not counting soldiers' pay, equipment repair etc - is enough to give every man, woman and child in Afghanistan a $300 monthly stipend. The beauty of it is that you effectively compel the farmers to switch, but do it without using threats or force. That puts the Taliban in the awkward position of having to use force to make them switch back, because it's offering a less lucrative option than you are. There would be almost no point trying to recoup losses. Pharma already has all the opiates it needs. I would add that if such a plan weren't adopted, the second-best option would be to just let them get on with it. Eradication is bananas. Spraying will alienate people both inside and outside Afghanistan. It will raise comparisons with Agent Orange. It might have unforeseen health effects. It will have one highly foreseeable health effect - farmers' kids will go hungry. It will bring NATO and the populace into contact in very negative situations. It will also infuriate European voters, who will say their soldiers are being endangered to please America's obsessive drug crusaders. It could lead to pullouts. I know for a fact that the British Army is dead against eradication of any sort, and I'm sure the French, Germans etc agree 100%. Having said all that, I think it's all a bit hypothetical given current trends. The occupation of Afghanistan is going nowhere. There's no reconstruction worth a damn, no reform of warlord rule, hearts and minds are being lost faster than they can be won. NATO is simply treading water in an environment that will get more hostile each year. Simply fighting the Taliban is a loser's policy. Both sides will kill civilians, but the foreigners will always get most of the locals' blame. Unless huge changes are made in the occupation, changes which no longer seem feasible, at least while the Iraq war consumes all resources, NATO is ultimately heading for the exit. Eradication would speed that process enormously, but that doesn't mean non-eradication will reverse it.
 
By OD on March 1, 2007 12:20 PM
Unlike Ry, I'm being characteristically negative.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 12:50 PM
Indeed. You are.
 
By John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2007 12:54 PM
Owen - what about this report, from the Senlis Council? I admit to knowing next to nothing about them, and a lack of time to look into it.
 
By OD on March 1, 2007 1:49 PM
Well that's the first I've heard about a legal opium shortage. Certainly I've never heard of western hospitals being short of fentanyl and other such anaesthetics. Third world hospitals are of course typically short of all medicines. I know that CAMH in Toronto, and they're reputable. But much depends on your estimate of need. If some pain-sufferers' pressure group advocates more use of stronger drugs, then naturally it's likely to cite a demand higher than what many doctors are prepared to give out. Still, it's intriguing, and I admit I was basically assuming Pharma had all it needed based on the fact that I've never heard anything about a shortage. But like you, I don't think the ability to recoup costs should be a major factor in the decision one way or the other.
 
By ry on March 2, 2007 3:46 AM
Okay, only read the execsum and their "about us" tells me squat, but.... When someone comes out blasting pharma as money grubbing bastiches right out of the gate like that it's a magnesium flare. Why have we moved away from opioids? They're addictive. Highly. That which makes them effective, the collection of functional groups, makes them highly addictive. When they broke my face, surgicaly, from the eyes down when I was 16 I got 4, count 1-2-3-4, morphine shots total. The rest was non-opioid and oral. Think about that. destruction of 80 percent of the bones in my face and I only got 4 massive shots of morphine in the two days immediately after surgery, with 6 weeks of pain, and starving, left to go. It's nasty but effective stuff. YOu don't want to be giving people opioids for long periods of time, so I'm throwingh the BS flag on chronic pain. If you do you wind up having junkies you have to put on methedone. Not good. It isn't greed but good science and 'Do No Harm' that pushes that. So that's a flat out indicator of a pharma hater right there. (But I'm a synthetic organics guy by training so you might want to factor that in as well.) I am on board with them in producing industry in Afghanistan. If soil is a problem build them a Haber plant. Coffee, as I understand it, is rather hard on soil. They'll need it. OD is rather where I want to go: subsidize for a while with a cash crop in the short term, start some industrialization, smash everyone who doesn't come along for the ride. But where I differ is on keeping opium production going. It is not a good thing. And not just because I'm a tea-totaler. Opioids are great molecules but dangerous. There is no shortage of pain meds. It's just that non-opioid synthetics aren't cheap in the short run. So few can afford lots of them. Expensive synthetics or Rush Limbaugh junkies(or actual physical junkies you put on methedone)? Tough call. Mix of two proll'y best, but that's gotta be watched closely. We don't want to be creating junkies as we treat pain. Buy and burn this year. Shift over time to subsidized crop. Start industry to support the newer crop(two prong; moves people off of farms to easier to defend cities and is a boost to national economy since more of the money spent on machinery stays in country). BUt first we need a real NATO group effort to pacify some section 24/7 to allow that. Suckage.