Defense Issues

Military and general security

  • Follow Defense Issues on
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 268 other followers

  • July 2020
    M T W T F S S
  • Categories

Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Psychopathy in politics, finance and military

Posted by picard578 on June 20, 2017

This is also relevant for the military – military is the extension of society, and war in general brings out the best and the worst in the people. In the peacetime, psychopathy of rulers explains the seemingly contradictory procurement process – buying inferior weapons (e.g. F-35 instead of F-22); retiring useful weapons (e.g. A-10); and spending money on useless trinkets while ignoring needs of troops in the combat zone and veterans alike. The only possible solution to this problem is the direct democracy. Such a system however would not work in the military, because military requires quick decision making, which in turn requires a clear hierarchy and chain of command. This is why an overly powerful military always was a threat to democracy – a military which gains political power rewards psychopathy.

Psychopaths like power, and they want to keep it for themselves. This is why politicians promote supranational integrations such as NATO, European union and so on – they are antidemocratic, and therefore appeal to psychopaths who like to keep all the power for themselves. NATO still exists despite its purpose having been ended, because it serves the purpose of destroying the society. Same goes for European union.

War today is business. Military cannot operate without supplies, and flow of supplies heightens especially during the war. It is business corporations which provide those supplies, and they want to maximize profits. This is why efficient weapons and efficient politics are not pursued today. Greater the logistical footprint of the weapon, greater the profits – and complex weapons such as F-35 require extensive logistics support, because they cannot be fixed at the front line. They are also typically more expensive, meaning that greater percentage of profits goes to capitalists. NATO itself is business, because member states have to standardize their equipment, which for most means buying from the United States. And expanding NATO means greater profits for arms dealers. In fact, it is precisely the psychopaths such as George Soros that support supranational integrations.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Secularism in the Islamic World ?

Posted by picard578 on October 23, 2016

Islam is a totalitarian system of though, and this alone makes it incompatible with democracy. Fact that it is primarily a politico-social ideology with mystical aspect only added to justify the political one only seals the deal.

Among the Ruins of Nabhivarsha

The discovery of the classical literature of Greece and Rome coupled with the various revolts against the Catholic Church in Europe led to a chain of events that resulted in what is today recognized as three overlapping movements – the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. These movements transformed Europe fundamentally giving rise to new systems of government, philosophy, science and ethics. The ideas with which most people think about the world and the beliefs that animate their goals and imaginations – freedom, democracy, secularism, progressivism etc have their genesis in these movements.

Thinkers and writers who sincerely adhere to the above ideas have often held the illusion that the path taken by Europe is the path that ought to be taken by other nations, cultures and civilizations and believe that this will lead to universal human emancipation. What exactly this human emancipation involves and the World it will bring…

View original post 747 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Al-Quaeda now a US ally in Syria

Posted by picard578 on November 24, 2012

(article follows)

While we reflect on the 11th anniversary of the al Qaeda attacks on American soil, there is a blinding light that may obscure our view: this sworn enemy now fights hand in hand with the US against the Syrian regime.

The historic State of the Union address by US president George W. Bush on September 20, 2001 is loaded with morals and principles about good and evil.

The president’s ultimatum was clear: either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

In Syria, there is mounting evidence that Al Qaeda and its allies are actively deploying terror tactics and suicide bombers to overthrow the Assad regime.

Syrian citizens who prefer the secular and stable state to the prospect of an Iraqi-style sectarian state may well be turning this same question around to the US government: are you with us, or with the terrorists?

This week, head of the Salafi jihad and close ally of al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, pledged ”deadly attacks” against Syria as ”our fighters are coming to get you” because ”crimes” by the regime ”prompts us to jihad”.

Bush referred to al Qaeda as the enemies of freedom: ”the terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews”. But Sheikh Muhammad al Zughbey proclaimed that ”your jihad against this infidel criminal and his people is a religious duty … Alawites are more infidel than the Jews and Christians”. Because the new jihad targets Alawites rather than Jews and Christians, does this render them better bed fellows?

By his own admission, Bush stated that al Qaeda was ”linked to many other organisations in different countries … They are recruited from their own nations … where they are trained in the tactics of terror … They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction”.

Yet this is precisely how the foreign jihadists in Syria have been described by reporters. They are funded and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. And they collaborate with the Free Syrian Army which is aided and abetted by the US.

Bush condemned the Taliban regime because they were ”sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder”. Eleven years later, the parallels produce an uncomfortable truth.

If only the Syrian uprising was as simple as the Arab Spring narrative where citizens seek democracy and freedom. But those unarmed protests have long since been hijacked by a cocktail of agendas which have little to do with Syrian democracy, and more to do with a proxy war to create a sectarian Sunni state that weakens Shi’te Iran’s main partner in the region.

Bush was correct in claiming that al Qaeda ”want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan” – who were all US-Israel allies at that time.

But his list stopped short of mentioning Syria or Iraq, the real targets of al Qaeda. Why does overthrowing Syria, using the same terror tactics, fail to attract the same degree of outrage?

Bush continues: ”We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.”

This pledge appears to have fallen on its own sword, given the funding of the jihadists in Syria. The terrorists have bred and spread across borders, which is the opposite of Bush’s prophecy.

The US administration must come clean about its financial aid. It cannot use one hand to sign a blank cheque to the rebels, and the other hand to cover its eyes to their immoral and illegal tactics. It cannot hide behind ”the end justifies the means” as there are too many innocent lives at stake.

Bush rode off on his high horse: ”We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them … may God grant us wisdom”.

If the principles and morality are to be taken seriously, then they need to be applied consistently.

The US regime should be actively and publicly distancing itself from the foreign terrorists and Salafist jihadists that are proliferating within sovereign Syria.

It should be condemning al Qaeda for its militant intervention. It should be condemning the Saudi sheikhs who issue fatwas for an Alawite holocaust.

The wisdom that we see is grief over the al Qaeda crime 11 years ago, yet covert collaboration with this sworn enemy today.

Perhaps the US is applying another principle that they may have learned from their pragmatic Arab allies – the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Posted in news | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: