How to win friends and influence people who want to kill us.

Here’s what happened in Afghanistan: we took a highly influential, right-wing, religious fundamentalist political party, the Taliban, from being quasi-rulers and turned them into mountain guerillas who are in little danger of extinction. We did this by destroying or capturing their governing infrastructure while allowing a sizeable portion of their personnel to escape. Nonetheless, if our goal was to remove the Taliban from control in Afghanistan so that major al-Qaeda terrorist groups no longer enjoyed government protection, then we succeeded.

What can we do now?

Plan A. Declare victory. Withdraw our troops from Afghanistan. If the Taliban successfully reoccupy their former stations and decide to support more international terrorism, then do the same thing we did before, but try not to let anyone escape this time.

Plan B. Escalate our current military response. Scorch the earth wherever there are Taliban to be found. And then, because it will be the obvious next problem, find all of their relatives and kill them, too. Then kill anyone else likely to be sympathetic to Taliban beliefs or who are related to the innocent bystanders who were killed collaterally in the scorched earth campaign. After that, kill all the Muslims who think we are being anti-Islamic. And then kill everyone else who ends up hating us because of what we’ve done or who just hate us because of our freedom. Only then will the world be safe for democracy—at least for a few days.

OK, so Plan B is mostly just a rant. It won’t be my last.

Plan C. Keep doing what we’re doing. Keep doing what we’re doing. Keep doing what we’re doing. Keep doing what we’re doing. Keep doing what we’re doing. Keep doing what we’re doing. Keep….

Plan D. Stop being so gob-smacking stupid.

“They hate us for our freedom.” That has got to be the dumbest, lamest, baldest, most manipulative and strikingly concise piece of false propaganda I’ve ever heard. If you believe that, then you’ve been sold a pig in a poke.

Listen up: If you want to win, then you’d better know what drives your opponent, and this opponent doesn’t give a rat’s sass about our freedom.

But what they do hate is what they perceive as our political, cultural, corporate, economic and military influence, intimidation, interference and invasions in and of Islamic countries.

And how do we know this? Because those al-Qaeda terrorists, the criminals the Taliban allowed to shelter in Afghanistan, told us.

They told us not just in the controversial video tapes of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, but even more clearly in their choice of targets over nearly ten years of attacks.

• 1992, Aden, Yemen; two hotels that were expected to be housing American troops; the troops bivouacked elsewhere.
• 1993, New York City; first attempt to destroy the World Trade Center.
• 1996, Manila, the Philippines; thwarted (at the last minute) attempt to assassinate then President Bill Clinton during his visit there.
• 1998, Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; simultaneous attacks on U.S. embassies.
• 2000, Aden, Yemen; attack on the guided missile destroyer USS Cole.
• 2001, New York City and Washington, D.C.; simultaneous attacks on the World Trade Center (second attempt), the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol (thwarted). 

For al-Qaeda, these were carefully chosen, symbolic targets. They exemplified our military, political and economic predominance throughout the world, especially in Islamic regions. And none of these targets symbolize freedom.

If someone wanted to attack symbols of our freedom, obvious choices are available, among others:

• the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor
• Independence Hall and the nearby Liberty Bell, part of Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia
• the Washington Monument, on the Mall in D.C.
• the National Archives Exhibition Hall in Washington, D.C., housing original copies of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights
• “Old Ironsides,” the square-rigged frigate USS Constitution, in Boston Harbor
• the Bunker Hill Monument in Boston
• Fort McHenry National Monument near Baltimore, inspiration for our national anthem. 

No, al-Qaeda doesn’t hate our freedom. Their message is clear. As they see it, there is an entirely different set of problems having to do with oppressive and exploitive policies and actions on our part. That’s what has them miffed.

I do not pass judgment on the valdity of al-Qaeda’s complaints, but I vehemently condemn their acts of criminal terror. They have stooped to become what they denounce. Middle Eastern hypocrisy is just as disgusting as the western brand, no matter what name is used to call upon the Deity in justification.

However, I do have some questions: Why did many of our political leaders try to sell us a bill of goods about al-Qaeda’s motives? Were they too stupid to figure it out? Or did they just want to lead us around by the nose so they could pursue their own agendas? And did they think we’d be too stupid to figure that out?

Plan E. Give the President, Vice-President and each of our Senators and Representatives an M-4 carbine and a sack of grenades and send them to Afghanistan. Trust me, that war will be over before they touch down in Kabul. And we’ll have won.

Plan F. Starts with us looking in the mirror.

Spare Thoughts: Could it be? (A UGOB Extra)

As promised, here is one idle speculation as to why we still have significant concentrations of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It came to me last year when I was looking at a map (a better map than this one, fortunately) attempting to reorient myself to the region. I was looking for other motives that President Obama might have for pursuing these two conflicts. One leapt out at me. Do you see it?

In a word, Iran.

Iran, the next anticipated trouble spot in the Middle East. Heck, we've already practically got 'em surrounded. Keep in mind that the presence of troops also means the presence of military infrastructure, the time-consuming part of world dominance.

Hey, I'm just saying.

Sorry about the map. When UGOB's cartographer was told we'd need something better, he just rolled his eyes and went back to watching movies.

Afghanistan for Dummies

We are many years—and thousands of casualties—late in bringing our troops and those of allied nations home from Afghanistan. We won the war in Afghanistan eight years ago, in the first few months of our military action there, when we unseated the Taliban and sent them running for the hills. Since then, we have just been banging our head against the bamboo (an organic metaphor I use with purpose).

My appreciation for the troops who have served, suffered or died in Afghanistan knows no bounds. I have nephews who have, are and will be serving there; I am as proud as I can be when they call me Uncle Genie. They are among the tens of thousands of (mostly young) men and women who are willing to give that last full measure of devotion in demonstrating American resolve in advancing freedom and human rights and in protecting us and defending our constitution. There is no greater love of country.

Those troops are living to their oaths and doing what we send them to do. They are not the dummies.

The dummies are the national leaders who pay no attention to the lesson of decades of French and U.S. failures in Vietnam. To the failure of the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan, of France in Algeria and of Turkey in Greece. To the failure of the Philippines to eradicate communist partisanship, of Israel to defeat Hamas, of Spain to wipe out Basque separatism, of England and Northern Ireland to unilaterally control the Irish resistance, of nearly every second country in South and Central America to contain internal armed opposition, of many African nations to end decades-long civil wars, of the never-ending murderous civil unrest in southern Asia and the Indian subcontinent and the continuing internal conflicts in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, the Balkans, Mexico, eastern Europe and elsewhere. I mean, lets face it: our leaders haven’t even learned anything from eight years in Afghanistan. Wake up and smell the frustration.

The obvious, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, clear-as-day, glaring, unmistakable point is this: guerilla wars cannot be won—except by the guerillas.

Guerilla insurgencies can, after a fashion, be suppressed, but only by an overwhelmingly brutal, oppressive and cruel campaign that ignores human rights, has no concern for collateral damage and expects no positive outcomes other than the goal of suppression. But that’s not really our style, is it?

And even so, eventually the embers are once more excited and the armed resistance flares up again.

Why can’t they be defeated? Why do they always rise to fight again?

Because these movements are not infrastructure based. They are organic, like the bamboo. They are rooted in ideas, or beliefs, or desires. Infrastructure can be captured or destroyed, thoughts and feelings can’t. They can move or be reborn in other times and places.

When people are willing to die for those thoughts or feelings, any war is likely already lost.

Especially when those willing fighters are mostly young—meaning virtually oblivious to their own mortality and newly awash in their own naturally-occurring, rousing steroidal hormones. This age group is typical of an insurgency and creates a nearly endless resource of eager soldiers even when the movement is not enthusiastically supported by the general population. That’s why we depend on them for our armed forces.

The solution? Isn’t it obvious? Don’t wage counter-insurgent wars. They never work anyway, except in wishful planning and fanciful propaganda. And have you noticed? President Obama does seem enthusiastic about the making of ever-newer plans and strategies for Afghanistan, doesn’t he?

Now maybe Mr. Obama didn’t see enough of the Vietnam War, so perhaps he’s just misguided. Or maybe he has a hidden agenda (to be speculated upon elsewhere). Hopefully he’s not just one more standard–issue pol willing to trade the lives of American service people for his own re-election. But it’s starting to smell that way.

So, is there anything to do besides fight on the losing side of a guerilla war? There are several alternatives. Tune in next time.

Uncle Genie's Energy Policy

CO2's not good for you!

Sorry, folks, it’s time to douse the campfire—carbon is so last century. Burning carbon produces CO2 and other waste products, which is why nobody likes to sit downwind from a campfire.

Carbon: oil, coal, natural gas and biomass

Oil is carbon. It’s a source-limited fuel poisonous to the environment in extraction, conversion and utilization. More oil means a more toxic world for all of us.

Oil is also a constant incendiary to international relations and a hazard to the causes of peace, justice and freedom. Despite any propaganda to the contrary, on this planet oil does little to prop up democracy; just check your globe. And even in existing democracies it tends to prop up corruption.

Investing in domestic oil production makes as much sense as moving Afghan heroin poppy cultivation to North Dakota or trying to corner the market on bald tires. Why bring even more of the risks of a dangerous moribund technology to our shores?

Wouldn't you rather chomp down
on this than stomp down on it?

Biomass is carbon. It offers, at best, a brief and conditional alternative to oil. More importantly, it is already reducing food supplies in a world which struggles with widespread starvation and is raising the cost of food for the rest of us. It will not do us any good if a failing BP were to be bought out by Kellogg’s.

Coal and natural gas are carbon. So what if they’re abundant? Dirt is abundant, but you don’t see us putting ketchup on it at dinner time.

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is exponentially more dangerous than carbon. Unfortunately, the incalculable risks of accidents, of the waste products and of their disposal severely limit the potential of nuclear power generation under current technology. To pretend otherwise is just that—pretend.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen is not carbon. But it is abundant and clean. Which is why no one’s gangbusters about it. They haven’t figured out how to get filthy rich from it yet. Not surprisingly, the most popular form of hydrogen production proposed in this country uses—you'll never guess what—natural gas. Yup, carbon.

But there are other methods to extract hydrogen right from water, including using solar power and hydrogen itself. And since hydrogen technology development would be good for us, why should we wait for some multinational corporation to figure out how to make us pay through the nose for it? How about you and I go into the hydrogen business for ourselves? Maybe this is one of those situations where government—us working together—might be a really good idea.

One popular objection to hydrogen is its volatility, that is, its ability to burn or explode. We certainly don’t want to be carrying a flammable substance around in our cars, do we? Let’s just stick with 20 gallons of high octane gasoline or methane alcohol. Duh!

In fact, hydrogen lends itself to creative new technologies. One such method can store hydrogen as a non-volatile solid; it can even be chemically bound to the ultra-light framework of future cars and released only as required, eliminating the need for a fuel tank.

Domesticating Energy Production and Conservation

Backyard solar and wind
generating station.

Solar-based resources (sun, wind, hydro and tidal) are not carbon. They may have certain limits but also offer ideal possibilities for small-scale domestication (e.g., home and business solar and wind generators) perfect for tax-based incentives, outright grant support and patriotic fomentation (think WWII "victory gardens" and bond drives). And wind generators can’t be any more hideous than the forest of TV antennas we used to live with. Finally, wouldn’t it be nice to be selling power to the electric company?

Electric cars are a good idea, but if they depend on carbon based electric generation then we are merely robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Jobs, business and community development efforts should be combined with compelling mass transit planning and incentives. Hundreds of millions of internal combustion engines moving large populations of single individuals to work or other necessities every day is moronic. Save the car for vacations in the country.

You should listen
 to Uncle Genie.

Unavoidablele Conclusions

Will these alternatives be more expensive than carbon? In the short run, probably. In the long run, however, these are some of the alternatives we can live with.

The United States will never be able to assume a leadership role in the world economy until it takes a leadership stance in its own energy policy. Until then we're just blowing smoke.

Free speech isn't free

Notable among other increasing costs is the rising price of free speech. The recent Supreme Court decision which struck down certain restrictions on corporate campaign spending, coupled with a 2006 decision which denied the validity of state campaign finance restrictions, are among the latest pressures contributing to this inflationary trend. In both cases the narrow court majorities proposed a connection between free spending and free speech. Problem is, as the charges for free speech go up, poorer folks are getting priced out of the market.

Try as I might, I can’t think of a good counter-argument, though—keeping the Constitution in mind.

The way I see it, there is very little free speech that isn’t associated with some monetary outlay. From a speaker’s note cards to the cost of a soap box to stand on, from the bottle of water to wet the pipes to the 30-second spot on prime time TV, it all costs money. About the only speech that is truly free is when you stick your head out the window and shout, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna’ take it anymore!”

Still, I don’t like it. Seems like those with more money get to buy more free speech. Reminds me of Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

So let’s take a look at the source document. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….” accords the civil rights-packed First Amendment. Hmmmm. I suppose one might argue that the right applies to subject matter rather than to quantity, but probably not.

Well then, what sort of free speech costs are we talking about here? Taller soap boxes? Bigger water bottles? No; for the most part, I reckon we’re talking about transmissions via electromagnetic waves—television and radio, that is.

And guess who owns those waves. We, the people, do.

More on this at a later date.