Israel to UN: Oops, our bad

Oh, and one more thing: anyone who doubts that removing personnel from an organisation is a good strategy should ask themselves one question: since 2006, when al-Queda’s C3 (command, control, and communications) personnel infrastructure has been decimated, how many large-scale attacks has that group been able to successfully execute?

To my knowledge, the attack in India a few weeks ago was the only one, and that one went as far as it did only because the security structure of that city was hopelessly inept at putting the crisis down when it first began.

Take out the personnel who run the C3 infrastructure, and you take out the organisation’s ability to plan and execute its strategy.

I recently saw a poster from the NGO, CARE, that had a lovely scene of kids in Africa and the words, “The Will To Care” at the bottom.

When I saw this poster, I realised it was missing one image in the illustration: a 7.62mm sniper’s bullet.

(waits for the trolls to go nuts)

If one truly “cares” about a downtrodden population, one does not keep throwing good money after bad, which allows a corrupt government to remain in power. One decapitates the C3 structure of that government, one head at a time, with a 7.62mm round aimed at the base of the neck (drops the target like a sack of flour; he doesn’t ever realise what hit him). While one drops his C3 infrastructure, one works with the citizenry to rebuild the government into something that represents the will of the people. And one commits to this process for at least a decade if one is serious about doing such work.

The reason for doing anything like this is, as part of the Bush Doctrine recognises, is that a country or nation-state that does not have a government strong enough to enforce the rule of law on its lands and population is a country that quickly becomes a haven for terrorists and terrorist groups.

In a post-Cold War world, if we want to be safe, we are forced to “care”.

One 7.62mm round at a time.

The consequence for doing nothing was proven during the 1990′s by the Clinton administration, culminating in the attack on 9/11.

And as they say, “past is prologue”.

Wanderlust on January 15, 2009 at 5:12 PM

I prefer the fifty cal..

Johan Klaus on January 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Messy. 7.62mm leaves little mess, and presumably has a lower carbon footprint (/sarc).

progressoverpeace on January 15, 2009 at 5:39 PM

IMHO the armed part is only the tip of the iceberg. There are some multinationals that on their own could afford to pull off a mercenary action, but without the admin function that the US would do afterwards, all that results is a far worse power vacuum, of which even more terrorists and thugs would pile in to fill.

Aside from the fact that the US Govt (the saner parts of it, at least) recognises a far greater national security burden than the rest of the world – for better or for worse – there are only two other countries that could pull off a regime change invasion and subsequent occupation. Neither of those countries, however, would act in anyone else’s interests but their own. The last time one of those countries was in their own regime change business, we called it the Cold War and paid a gazillion dollars to fight it.

As for the example you cited, I’d be interested to know who was ultimately paying the invoices for that mercenary force. My bet is that the other end of the money trail terminated in Bejing.

The UN and its vaunted blue hats are nothing more than parasites who feast off the corpses of innocents across the globe. Now that their man will become POTUS next week, every one of those whores will be partying till they drop on the 20th. Ditto with the sellouts in Foggy Bottom.

Wanderlust on January 15, 2009 at 8:36 PM