| Thursday,
October 26, 2006 Dr
Pournelle
Fred Reed <fredoneverything.net <http://www.fredoneverything.net>
http://www.fredoneverything.net/IsraeliFuture.shtml
>
may have gone around the mental bend, but he does pose an interesting
question: Can Israel last? Short answer: No. Long answer: 4 million Israelis
are surrounded by 60 million Arabs. Eventually the Arabs will figure out the
math. When they do, Israel dies. It appears that the Arabs have found a path
to a solution. Open-terrain, mechanized combat is the forte of the IDF. But
two dozen half-trained street fighters with AK-47s and IEDs are a match for
a squad of Israeli soldiers. (I have never understood why the Israelis
allowed the formation of an autonomous 'Palestinian' state that borders on
Israel. It is nothing but a breeding ground for terrorists . . .er, excuse
me, 'non-state combatants.' )
Respectfully h lynn keith
PS What became of the kidnapped soldiers for
whose freedom Israel went to war?
This is a more complex question than it
appears to be. It also requires examining some of the premises from which
Fred operates.
His first premise is that the Israelis
will not and cannot treat the Palestinians (and any other enemies) as the
Israelites, on orders from Yahweh, treated the Amelikites:
1 Samuel 15:2-3 - Thus says the Lord of hosts,..
(3) Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not
spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep,
camels and donkey!
You may recall that Saul didn't follow those
orders.
And there was a sore war against the
Amelikites all the days of Saul’s reign. And Samuel said unto Saul, “Go and
smite the Ameli-kites and destroy all that they have including every ox,
sheep, camel, and ass. But Saul spared the King and the best of the sheep,
and of the oxen, and the lambs and all that was good. And Samuel came to
Saul and said, “The Lord anointed thee King over Israel and the Lord sent
thee on a journey. But because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He
hath also rejected thee from being King.” Now the spirit of the Lord had
departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrified him.
Another premise (I quote from Fred):
Even now, neither the Israeli nor the US military is convincingly
dominant. The American forces are enormous but designed for wars they
are not going to fight. Carrier task forces, armored divisions, and
nuclear submarines would excel against the Imperial Japanese Navy or the
Red Army in the Fulda Gap. They lose to ragtag guerrillas. The ragtag
guerrillas have noticed this. America hasn’t won a war since 1945.
But is this true? In 1972 the United
States had won the war in Viet Nam. In 1975 the South Vietnamese lost to an
invasion from the North because the United States withdrew its support; but
it was an invasion from the north. South Viet Nam was not lost to
"asymmetrical warfare" or guerrilla actions or insurgency. It was lost to an
invasion from the North by an army of 150,000 men and a great number of
tanks. The invasion was no stronger or better led or better organized than
the failed effort of 1972 -- indeed, it had fewer veterans and worse
equipment -- but this time the US did not support the Army of the
Republic of Viet Nam with air power, and the Congress of the United States
sent its South Vietnamese allies 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per man.
Bereft of support from the US, Saigon accordingly fell to the Soviet
supported and supplied armored corps of the North: proving that military
conquest of conventional forces works quite well when there is no
opposition.
Moreover the ruthless occupation of the
South by the North worked quite well. Apparently counter insurgency works
fine if applied by communists against those with Western scruples.
As to losing to ragtag guerrillas, what is
it that is lost? If the United States were to apply to Baghdad the tactics
that Pol Pot applied in Cambodia, or North Viet Nam applied to South Viet
Nam after 1975, what might the result be? Of course we will not do that. We
are horrified by pranks that might have been seen in the basements of
Charlie Company at West Point during Beast Barracks in the Summer of 1954.
But it is still wrong to say we have not won a war since 1945, or that we
cannot win one now.
All that said, there is some logic in
Fred's column. And then what?
=========
Subject: US Population Density Map
Dr. Pournelle:
I noticed this image of the density of US population:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom
/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17439 ...
and this text accompanying it: "The population of the
United States reached 300 million on October 17, 2006, said the U.S. Census
Bureau.
<http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/
releases/archives/population/007616.html>
With one birth every 7 seconds, a death every 13 seconds, and a migrant
entering the country every 31 seconds, the United States' population is
growing at a rate of one person every 11 seconds. "
Regards, Rick Hellewell
===========
Subject: Bias at the BBC
Dear Dr Pournelle,
With reference to Bas's post of June 24th, here is the
BBC's own view on the matter:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/bias_at_the_bbc.html
Bias at the BBC?
By Helen Boaden
"..... According to the Mail on Sunday, and other
recent press reports, we have admitted that we are an organisation of
trendy, left-leaning liberals who are anti-American, biased against
Christianity, in favour of multiculturalism, and staffed by people who
wouldn't know an unbiased fact if it hit them on the head.
The Mail on Sunday based its story on a leak from what
it called a "secret" meeting of BBC executives and governors, and claims
that it was our former political editor, Andrew Marr himself, who confessed
to the liberal bias of the organisation. His take was reinforced by Jeff
Randall, who until recently was our business editor. "If they say it, then
it must be true" was the thrust of the story.
Well I was one of the people who was at the "secret"
meeting. and I have to say the reality was somewhat different to the way the
press are reporting it ....."
And so on.
Notwithstanding legitimate claims of bias against the
BBC, I would note that the Daily Mail is hardly blameless of sensationalist
reporting and its tone could best be described as strident.
Me? I seem to spend more and more time watching Fox
News ...
Cheers, Simon Woodworth.
=========
Jerry, the North Viet Nam invasion you mention wasn't
in 1973, but 1972. I know, because I was there and I left the service in
January 1973.
-- Joe Zeff
True enough and thanks. Somehow I have managed
to get that date confused in my head, and I am not sure why. In 1972 ARVN
with US help defeated an invasion of 150,000 and a full corps of armor; the
North lost 100,000 in killed, wounded, and captured. This is victory on a
grand scale. US casualties for the year 1972 were under a thousand. There is
absolutely no reason to suppose that had the US given ARVN the same support
in 1975 that invasion would not have met the same fate, or worse. The USSR
stood by its allies. The Congress of the United States would not do so. The
US wasn't defeated. We simply withdrew.
==========
Subject: Opinionjournal -- Interesting opinions
Jerry:
Interesting opinions from Opinionjournal.com's Best of
the Web Today (Ed. James Taranto) for Wednesday October 25th:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009148
Quoting other reports/web reports in an item titled
"The View From Iraq" with citations as noted:
"An unnamed American (Sergeant) in Iraq"
<snip of lead-in describing situation as the author
sees it)>"
In Germany after World War II, we controlled our
sector with approximately 500,000 troops, directly administering the area
for 10 years while we rebuilt the country and rebuilt the social and
political infrastructure needed to run it. In Iraq, we've got one-third that
number of troops dealing with three times the population on a much faster
timetable, and we're attempting to unify three distinct ethnic groups with
no national interest and at least three outside influences (Saudi Arabian
Wahhabists, Iranian mullahs and Syrian Baathists) each eagerly funding
various groups in an attempt to see us fail. And we are.
"If we continue on as is in Iraq, we will leave here
(sooner or later) with a fractured state, a Rwanda-waiting-to-happen. "Stay
the course" and refusing to admit that we're screwing things up is already
killing a lot of people needlessly. Following through with such inane
nonstrategy is going to be the death knell for hundreds of thousands of
Sunnis.
"We need to backtrack. We need to publicly admit we're
backtracking. This is the opening battle of the ideological struggle of the
21st century. We cannot afford to lose it because of political
inconveniences. Reassert direct administration, put 400,000 to 500,000
American troops on the ground, disband most of the current Iraqi police and
retrain and reindoctrinate the Iraqi army until it becomes a military that's
fighting for a nation, not simply some sect or faction. "<snip>
Reader Russ Daniel:
<snip>"...terrorists cause chaos in Iraq with a goal
of making it appear to Americans that our military is wasting time, lives
and effort over there. The mirror of that result comes when Democrats
intentionally disrupt American efforts by portraying our soldiers as
criminals. Don't they realize that Iraqis will see these comments and will
ultimately come to believe that they are wasting time, lives and effort by
cooperating with us?"
Reader Chris Thier:
<snip of several good points leading to this
conclusion>"It's always a mistake to see the world as it is today and
mistakenly compare it with the world as it was on a day in the past. It's
harder to do, but infinitely more useful, to try to compare today's
situation with that in which we'd find ourselves if we had done nothing."
We would be better off had we done nothing in
Iraq if we simply cut and run now. Whether something can be retrieved or
achieved now, and what it would cost to make this worth while, is what ought
to be debated. It is possible that simply getting out -- cut our losses --
is the best course of action, but it is not entirely obvious that this is
true; it certainly need debate and discussion. As does the cost of actual
victory.
Can there be an Iraqi National Army? It
would be called The Republican Guard, and that would be its mission.
Or is partition the best answer? These are
all matters for debate. "Stay the course" doesnt mean a great deal. Stay
what course?
I tried to persuade the Powers not to go
into Iraq in the first place. Mesopotamia is not a good place for the west
to meddle in. We have known that since the First Triumvirate and Caesarian
times...
===========
Subject: Some UK news stories
I spotted these this morning.
CIA tried to silence protests in the EU against
rendition. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1931693,00.html>
NHS troubleshooter to quell hospital revolts. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Society/health/news/0,,1931713,00.html>
O-level exams may be coming back. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Education/gcses/story/0,,1931697,00.html>
Reverse PC in Australia <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6086374.stm>
<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1930606.ece>
Putin in Russia <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2421783,00.html>
Global immigration database <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/25/global_immigration_db/>
-- Harry Erwin, PhD, Program Leader, MSc Information
Systems Security, University of Sunderland.
============
From another conference:
> Grammar lessons vanished from public schools in
the
> 1970s, supplanted by a more holistic view of
> English instruction.
This innovation did not work out nearly as well as us
Boomers' invention of the female orgasm about the same time...
Jim
Or is it "we Boomers'"?????
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102201135.html?referrer=email
THE WASHINGTON POST
Clauses and Commas Make a Comeback
SAT Helps Return Grammar to Class
By Daniel de Vise Washington Post Staff
Writer Monday, October 23, 2006; A01
Mike Greiner teaches grammar to high school
sophomores in half-hour lessons, inserted between Shakespeare and
Italian sonnets. He is an old-school grammarian, one of a defiant few in
the Washington region who believe in spending large blocks of class time
teaching how sentences are built.
For this he has earned the
alliterative nickname "Grammar Greiner," along with a reputation as one
of the tougher draws in the Westfield High School English department.
Or, as one student opined in a sonnet he
wrote, "Mr. Greiner, I think you're torturing us."<snip>
=============
From another conference
All,
Having utterly failed to make any difference starting
with high school students, it appears that the Gates Foundation (see
sourcing for the information in the graphic contained in this article) is
starting to beat the drums for trying to intervene much younger.
To me, the striking thing is the information in the
graphic provided. A First World country cannot live with a large-and-growing
population sub-segment that does as well as the *successes* from the Perry
Preschool Program.
Jim
The cost figures are present consistent with what it
cost us to send my children to preschool.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_43/b4006099.htm
BUSINESS WEEK
OCTOBER 23, 2006
SOCIAL ISSUES
Going Beyond Head Start
Programs that put real money into intensive
preschooling pay off -- in productive workers
To stay competitive, companies need an
educated workforce. That's one reason executives wince at the sorry
scores U.S. students earn in international reading, science, and math
rankings. The results skew especially low for children from
disadvantaged homes, and some education experts conclude that the
quality of the American workforce will decline as the number of such
households increases.
It doesn't have to be that way. Analyzing
data from a series of long-term studies, a band of scientists,
educators, and economists say that aggressive preschool training for
children from troubled homes yields extraordinary dividends for the
families and society. Waiting until elementary school or later doesn't
pay off. With an early start, "all the evidence says that we can reduce
inequality, and it's economically efficient," says James J. Heckman,
Nobel laureate and economist at the University of Chicago.
Some of the most persuasive data come from
a 40-year, 123-child study at the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project in
Ypsilanti, Mich. In 1962-67, preschool teachers worked intensively with
64 low-income African American children aged 3 to 4, both at preschool
and once a week in their homes. Such efforts don't come cheap: The
High/Scope program cost $10,600 per pupil, in 2005 dollars.
But 40 years later, when administrators
compared the children's life stories with those of 59 people who did not
receive special attention, the payoff was impressive. Almost half of the
preschooled children performed at grade level by the age of 14, compared
with just 15% in the control group, and 60% were earning upward of
$20,000 a year in their 40s, vs. 40% in the control group. Throw in the
higher number of school grades completed, lower rates of criminal
activity, reduced time spent in prison, and other factors, and the
benefit-to-cost ratio comes to $17 for every $1 invested. "The research
is overwhelming," says Arthur J. Rolnick, director of research at the
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and an enthusiastic supporter of
such programs. "It all comes down to ⤗the earlier, the better.'"<snip>
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
