-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War!
ARTICLE 01 - Moral Courage in Peace Is As Important As in War ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- By Gary R. Stalhut Last year, a fine young Captain who worked for me resigned his commission. I did my best to convince him not to resign, but he was adamant. John was a stellar West Point graduate, an officer who truly believed in his personal integrity and the integrity of the Army. His reason for resigning still troubles me today: John told me he lost confidence in the leadership of the Army. John explained that he did not wish to become a sycophant. My answer was simple, "We need officers like you, if you leave how will it ever change?" Unfortunately, John is not an anomaly; too many of our bright company grade officers make the same choice and more significantly, give the same reasons. I am both disturbed and embarrassed about what John and other fine officers have described to me prior to resigning. They did not complain about lower pay than their civilian counterparts, too many days in the field, or the lure of a 9-5 civilian job. The gist of what these fine idealistic young officers tell me, is that they lost faith in the Army. They lost confidence in their superiors being willing to do the right thing. Over the past ten years the Army has conducted numerous studies to find out why these juniors officers are leaving in such high numbers. Climate surveys, sensing sessions and polls were conducted. The conclusions included a robust economy, increased operations tempo, and even denial that it was really happening. Yet, we cannot deny that real issues are still driving many of our idealistic young officers out of the Army. The nation expects its military leaders to show moral courage in times of war and it as important that we must also muster up our moral courage in times of peace. Which begs the question: What kind of moral courage are we displaying in the Army of 2002? Principles such as duty, honor, selfless service, and integrity come to mind. Displaying moral courage is not something we can do by consensus; it must not be subject to political winds, or relative to what society finds fashionable at any given time. As a private, I looked up to my NCOs and officers who did what was right for their troops and units first, and what was good for their careers, second. My mentoring as a lieutenant taught me that moral courage meant standing up for what is right, standing your ground when you know you are right and doing what is good for your soldiers first. I was taught that not doing it right gets soldiers killed. When gender integrated basic training was being forced on the Army and the Marine Corps, the leadership of the Marine Corps showed great moral courage when they stopped a program they knew was not good for the young men and women of the Marine Corps. The Marine Generals stood their ground knowing their careers were on the line. These brave men know that moral courage is not for the feint of heart. The U.S. Army today is truly at a crossroads. We, as leaders and mentors, can step up to the plate and show the same moral courage in peace as we do at war, or we will lose more and more of our good men and women. The challenge is not insurmountable; it starts with each one of us. These young idealistic officers are the future of our Army; they are counting on us to lead the way. Contributing Editor Gary R. Stalhut is an Army Reserve officer and combat veteran with 26 years of active and reserve duty. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Table of Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ARTICLE 02 - Why Are Elite Counter-Terror Units Missing From the War? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- By Jon Barrett The U.S. military has distinguished itself in Afghanistan - that much is certain. We went into an area in which everyone in the world was singing the praises of the Afghani/Taliban soldier and his staying power (remember Iraq's Republican Guard?). Common Opinion held that we would suffer the same fate the Soviet Union did (I guess they thought we would be fighting against ourselves, as the Soviets did). But, lo and behold, our military made quick, orderly, efficient work of removing the Taliban and disrupting Al Qaeda. I seem to recall that this was declared by the President to be a "war against terror." I also seem to remember, somewhere in the deep dark recesses of my muddled mind, that our military has an anti-terrorist capability on which we spend millions annually. So the question in my mind is this: If we have dedicated anti-terrorist forces, why are we using non-classified Special Forces, Air Force and Marines to combat terrorism? Not that they can't do the job. They have done a beautiful job. Without giving away any classified information, let me say that I am sure we have such an anti-terrorist capability. So after numerous terrorist attacks against the United States and our facilities overseas going as far back as the Reagan administration, where are our vaunted anti-terrorist teams? My fear: They are probably in their training cycles in their compounds. The training these teams go through is effective - the best there is. And they work jointly with Mossad, SAS, CIA, and so forth to track terrorism around the globe. The name of Osama bin Laden was used around these teams long before it became commonplace in the rest of the United States. Yet these teams never seem to be called upon to do the deed. Oh sure, they gather intel. Sure, they profile. Sure, they track. Sometimes they even participate in missions of indeterminate nature and scope. Perhaps they were even in Afghanistan recently - who knows? Certainly not the taxpayers who employ them. Or the terrorists who are supposed to be "deterred" by them. Despite the fact that we have built a rapid-deployment system that allows us to deploy these troops anywhere in the world incredibly rapidly, we apparently have failed to use them in a deterrent manner. Deterrence/MAD as a strategy worked on the entire Soviet Union - why wouldn't it work on terrorists? Instead, we have been known to negotiate, barter, and stall. We flip million-dollar Tomahawk missiles at Al-Qaeda tents. But we don't deploy our bad boys and kill the perps. And we keep the very existence of our anti-terrorist teams classified. So no one knows what they are truly capable of. Is it a lack of political will on the part of our lawmakers and administrations? In the case of specialized anti-terrorist SEAL teams, is it a lack of conviction on the part of Navy leaders to use that force as it was designed to be used? Have the diseases of Vietnam persisted to this day? Are we really so afraid of the world opinion that we can't use our military as it is designed to be used? Are we afraid to win? After recent events, I don't think the American public will object too much. The United States needs to use its quick-reaction forces to the limit of their capability. They may even be in Afghanistan now, but is that why we spend what we do to train them? So they can be used as glorified infantry? To occupy ground? There are numerous U.S. military forces better suited for that job. Our anti-terrorist teams are the shiny tip of the spear, able to go anywhere and execute the mission. They are intended to be the thunderbolt of lightning from the clear sky, that leaves nothing behind but scorched earth where a terrorist organization once stood. We know most of the terrorist groups in the world, where they train, where they live, and who they are. Why not eliminate them, as President Bush has so eloquently and correctly called for? If we are going to be a world police force, we should be an effective one. The doctrine of "hot pursuit" has been long recognized in international law. A state in hot pursuit of terrorists has the right to cross borders and bring perpetrators to justice. We do not need to be caught in a quagmire of posse comitatus or "acts of war." Let it be known that the United States will pursue any and all terrorist groups immediately and eliminate them. Then make it stick as a basic element of our foreign policy. We have the backing of the entire world to an unprecedented degree (as long as it lasts). Let's use that support - publicly and effectively. All it takes is the political will to do so. Contributing Editor Jon Barrett is the pen name of a Naval Reserve officer who has served in both the surface Navy and Naval Special Warfare. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Table of Contents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ARTICLE 03 - European Currency Hints of Major Political, Military Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- By J. David Galland To most Americans, and certainly to most American soldiers on duty in Europe, the new Euro currency and future military challenges have little or no connection. While many of us slept away our New Year's Eve revels on Jan. 1, the new Euro took hold and became the common currency for 12 nations in Western Europe. With the 55th anniversary of the post-World War II Marshal Plan coming in a few months, this currency change will signal a new era in economic and political relations between Europe and the United States. The Marshal Plan pulled Europe out of destruction and its post-war stagnation and ruin. More than a half-century later, the plan has resulted in the continent leveling the playing field with Uncle Sam and the almighty dollar! Europe has become a conglomerate of nations where national sovereignty has taken second place to economic unity. European leaders envision that this will be in the best interest of their economy and the bottom line - the trading value of the Euro against the dollar. Slowly but surely this economic union is taking on the identity, and certainly the role, of a governing force. Some observers say the Marshal Plan has come full circle. Others realize, quite perceptively, that the dollar is about to receive an unprecedented challenge *from the unified European market and its unifying currency. The true long-term effect of adopting a single currency is the creation of a political union. Political unions are symbiotic of their protecting force, even if the force strays a bit. This newly emerging European federal state will ultimately have responsibility for a continent-wide foreign and security policy as well as for what are now domestic economic and social polices. While each government, and various key political figures, differ in their reasons for wanting a political union, there is little doubt that the real rationale for the European Monetary Union is political, and not, as the masses believe, economic. Great Britain's Tony Blair, America's staunchest European ally on the continent, is clearly illustrative of my assertion. Blair walks in both camps, or as some say, talks out both sides of his mouth. He vehemently backs every American move. Meanwhile, Great Britain has no plan to eliminate its national currency while certainly considering itself an integral part of The European Union. The European Monetary Union was created by the ratification of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which called for a future political union. There is no credible, or sizable, country in the world that does not have its own national currency, which is generally considered a fundamental characteristic of national sovereignty. It is also the domestic key to independent financial management and budget policies in any country. As time goes on, and the European Monetary Union evolves into a more general political union, conflicts will rise from incompatible expectations about the sharing of power. This is absolutely something that the world can bet on. Without a doubt, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the erosion of Communism in Eastern Europe changed the basis and need for European foreign policy and military collaboration. The United States and Western Europe shared a close alliance for many years and continue to coordinate military undertakings within the NATO structure, primarily in the Balkans. But many Europeans in positions of responsibility see their economic interests and foreign policy goals differing from those of the United States in many parts of the world, including Eastern Europe itself. Further, the French and German governments want to develop an independent military capability that can operate without U.S. participation or consent. Great Britain is also a strong advocate for European military autonomy, at least in words if not yet in deeds. Last summer, the European Union announced tentative plans for the formation of a Euro Army, or Euro-Force. Notwithstanding, Great Britain jumped on the bandwagon pledging support and embracing the concept. However, this all seemed to lose steam given the global events of the past eight months. Continued tensions in Macedonia and Kosovo, coupled with the reactions caused by the September 11th terrorist attacks have muted many strong advocates for the rapid formulation of the Euro-Force. Clearly the movement toward a political merger based on the European Monetary Union with the recent implementation of the Euro currency, will serve to accelerate the development of an independent European military structure. By design, this Euro-Army will be capable of force projection outside Western Europe and supposedly will focus on humanitarian crises. Still, only a fool would believe that this limited role and mission could not ultimately change. It is my assessment that the attempt to forge a common military and a foreign policy for Europe could be an additional potential source of conflict - both among the member nations, as well as those outside of the group. It is widely assumed that European countries still differ in their national ambitions. There is no doubt, however, that a Europe of nearly 300 million people with an economy approximately equal in size to that of the United States, could create a formidable military force. One consequence of a politically unified Europe, with its own independent military and foreign policy, would be the accelerated reduction of the U.S. military presence in Europe. This, in turn could weaken the role of NATO, and perhaps make Europe more vulnerable to attack from outside. But don't bet on a reduction of U.S. military forces in Europe in the short term. The current presence of American forces in Germany today is almost solely justified by the need to insulate Western Europe from the complicated problems of the Balkan countries. In that regard, NATO and American soldiers are providing security for both the implementation and the competitive value of the Euro currency. Military leaders both in Europe and Washington prefer to have everyone, including American soldiers themselves, believe that the real reason that they are serving in the former Yugoslavia is to make the Balkans a comfy, warm, secure and thriving place to live. But I beg to differ. Marshall Tito, even with his iron fist, could not achieve that lofty goal in forty years, so it is neither rash nor defeatist to predict NATO's ultimate failure in the Balkans. The ancillary reasons - big business, defense contracts, research and development, and making money hand over fist, also keep U.S. soldiers on the continent. Simply put, the implications for the United States and American forces overseas, as well as for all Americans, are that we will sooner or later have to re-think our foreign policy with respect to Europe. All these years after the end of World War II, 55 years after the Marshal Plan, and now more than a decade after the end of the Cold War, this stumbling former punch-drunk continent has risen to a formidable status. I predict, not as an economist, but as a soldier, that a politically unified Europe will seek a different relationship with the United States. France will be a primary mover behind these changes and in so doing will again turn against us in a way reminiscent of former President Charles de Gaulle, who in the mid-1960s banned the U.S. military from French soil and left NATO in frustration over American interference with French policies toward countries such as Libya, Iraq, Iran and Vietnam. The United States must recognize that it will no longer be able to count on Europe as an ally in all its relations with third countries. The Europeans, guided by a combination of economic self-interest, historical traditions and national pride, will seek alliances and pursue policies that will likely be contrary to the interests of the United States. Mutual cooperation between Western Europe and the United States was long an exercise in quid-pro-quo, when the threat of conflict with the Soviet Union dominated international relations, and Europe's interest in containing the Soviet Union coincided with America's. The coming of the Euro currency as a harbinger of political autonomy across the continent sends a remarkably different message: For the United States to assume that similar levels of cooperation will continue to exist - economic, political and military - will be a very serious mistake. J. David Galland, Deputy Editor of DefenseWatch, is the pen name of a career U.S. Army senior Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Germany. He can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! Write to same address to be off lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
