Immigration Red Flags, Article 13, & Petitions To Sign & Share.

Please don’t forget about Article 13! Watch the video at the end of this entry!!!

Lately I’ve been mentally drafting an entry about citizenship in an open world. There are so many contradicting laws that makes no sense especially in combination with facilitated mass movements of people. It is indeed a very interesting topic for many reasons:

  1. Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
  2. Assuming that immigration laws make sense is naive since a number of measures are carried out in an attempt to create an image of governmental efficiency.
  3. Assuming that a territory will be more welcoming towards geographical neighbours also fly in the face of incredibly generous offers directed towards non-bordering territories. A territory might be legally more hostile towards people next door.

Just when I had all of this in the back of my mind I came across The Windrush Scandal that perfectly illustrates my point:

  1. You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
  2. You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
  3. All of a sudden you find that your status has been revoked several years even decades after you were welcomed into the territory and that you are all of a sudden being treated as an illegal immigrant.
  4. The digital revolution has wrecked havoc on the old system of file-keeping. So if you were born before 2000 you might struggle to get hold of school records and other “evidence,” because you were born before mainstream digitalisation. When I was little my name was just added in my parent’s passports, you had to have your own passport once you were a teen or something along those lines, so government bureaucracy and technological changes can easily land you in a grey area.

Did anyone say an open world? Think again. This is a topic worthy of a giga entry because the issue puts into question a myriad of things that we just assume in today’s digitally and commercially open world.

Once again:

  1. Just because a piece of paper grants you legal access doesn’t mean that you and your family will actually be safe – because there will always be many layers of “borders” – and if locals are pissed off and unhappy they might create their own border-control “service,” which you probably do not want to deal with, ever.
  2. An authority might change its mind about you or the ethnic demographic that you belong to regardless of whether or not you actually represent a threat as an individual or as part of a generalised group. You might just end up being targeted so that the government can look busy.

If the Windrush scandal illustrated anything it is how dangerous the illusion of an open world actually is. You might be safe in terms of residency for 40 years only to wake up one day to find out that you’ve been labeled an “illegal immigrant” and that you are on your way to a detention facility.

Here are some petitions to share about a more peaceful issue: the environment.

Fracking

Whaling

Plastic Pollution

Exotic Zoo Animals

Trophy Hunting

Detained Whales

Dog Fighting

 

 

 

Globalism vs. Localism & The Rise of Nationalism.

A clear advantage that you’ll have if you’ve been raised internationally is that it gives you the ability to compare different population groups and Nation State Systems.

If there is one thing that is clear to me whenever I look at old entries that I’ve written it is that the challenges faced all over the Western world are largely the same.

When a music publication criticises the current U.S. President in the U.S.A. the Italian counterpart uses the same tone and style towards the current Italian leadership.

When there is a movement to remove statues of historical characters in the U.S.A. you see the same unfolding in the U.K.

When a Norwegian ad is deemed racist in Norway since it features Norwegians and a Norwegian flag you see the same type of activism other places in Europe.

What is interesting though is that the backlash to globalism is localised Nationalism from groups who don’t necessarily seem to realise that we all find ourselves in the same boat…

Nationalism is bad when it is expansionist, when a sense of superiority dictates to such an extent that it justifies waging war and invading everybody else. Take this attitude and couple it with redistribution of wealth and you have a true horror-show next door since said group will have to expand in order to find more loot to “redistribute.“

Nationalism that is non-expansionist though ensures the survival of your Nation, especially if you are non-isolationist and keep your “friends“ close.

France for the French, Italy for the Italians, Norway for the Norwegians and England for the English has become the slogan that a lot of people hold on to these days ignorant of the fact that “the elite“ always intermarried and travelled around Europe as they wished…

Rules do not apply to the super rich. One of their privileges is freedom of movement. This is a privilege extended to those who work for them or those fortunate enough to work for corporations with an international reach.

The major bulk of whatever population group though remains stuck. No movement for them!

If the E.U. did something positive it was to enable liberty of movement to everyone, this was probably done to benefit businesses  but what it meant in practise was that more people had the liberty to pack their bags and simply exit.

This resulted in retired Norwegians moving to Spain where they could get more for their money, lots of Italians moving North to get access to jobs and people from Poland going Westwards all in the name of “pursuit of happiness.“

Of course this started to bother the managers of Nation State systems at a certain point, resulting in legal changes intended towards those who dared to leave.

Benefit recipients in Norway realised that they could have a pool, great food and cheap liquor if they went South!

Norwegians with substantial salaries in Norway realised that they could rent or buy villas if they took their Norwegian oil money with them anywhere else in Europe.

If you are well-off or rich up North there is no end to how you can live down South and as more and more people realised this I imagine that more and more bureaucrats were having nightmares and premature seizures.

All of this liberty resulted in non-elites owning properties all over Europe, moving around the continent on a whim while poor people could actually enjoy themselves and not just struggle.

So far so good? Well, apparently not. Because even though the scenario above might seem like a dream come true to anyone who actually believes in liberty the EU (and the UN) decided for some strange reason to invite everyone else into the European Utopia…

Freedom of movement also meant that if you could get across any border into Europe it would give you access to the entire continent. All of a sudden there were hordes of people doing anything and everything to get to Elysium; the source of all of their aid money, the Utopia in the distance.

Which of course can make one wonder if it was the majority who wanted colonialists out of their territories or whether or not this was the wish of specific elites eager to dominate their own territory?

How do you explain fighting for your independence when the result is mass flight Northwards only some years later?

It goes without saying that Europe cannot hold all of the world since Europe is a relatively small continent compared to other territories and when all of a sudden you end up having security threats all around your territory then how can anyone expect civilians to be quiet?

I think the reason for the current rise in Nationalism in Europe can be blamed on this.

For some weird reason though it is a Nationalism that is localised rather than a continental one, which means ignoring the fact that no European Nation stands alone in the challenges that they are facing and that the E.U. does not equal Europe.

This type of Nationalism rejects everything and anything reverting back to how things used to be when only the elite and the ridiculously wealthy could enjoy certain privileges.

It sounds like a political movement that is simply fed up. It also means that it doesn’t seem capable of actually dealing with the root of the problem which seems to be  international non-State organisations….

What you end up having are atomised Nations convinced that their situation is a uniquely unfortunate one, completely convinced that their situation is particularly bad and than the solution to their problems is: them alone, first, in front of everyone else, rather than a network of Nations facing challenges together.

Because this is the reaction observed all over the Western world I’m not quite sure how things will play out. The challenges are not unique, they are largely the same and if you were raised in an international fashion there is no way that you cannot see that.

What will the future bring? I have no idea but it will probably be bumpy for everyone.

 

 

When You Lose Your Headquarter While Fighting A Conventional Enemy….

Lately I’ve been thinking about the political establishment’s fixation on Russia and China. My reason for this is that I imagine that it must be reassuring and good to know that your Nation is in relatively good shape if you are called to fight a foreign State actor elsewhere…

What inspired these thoughts was a short YouTube video I watched from Paul Joseph-Watson where he spoke about the fall of Paris. This was before the yellow-West protests.

There seem to be no willingness to sort out internal turbulence from a great number of political establishments in Europe, who seem more concerned with distracting their enforcement officials with petty, feel-good, political-correctness issues, rather than nipping things in the bud. In addition the mainstream media are in on the hoax as well veiling Europe in a false wrapping of safety where critics are portrayed as merely ill-informed, or as Russian spies, or as racists, or as weird conspiracy theorists.

As it is though, the con-act is unravelling since the instability has grown to such an extent that the de-stabilisation effort can no longer be hidden.

Leaders such as Kurz and Salvini are lone voices of reason displaying the sort of leadership that is necessary in a situation such as this; the only issue is that their actions are contained and would have been more powerful and efficient if they were executed upon the continent as a whole.

The reason as to why I bring up this issue once again is that if the threat and the concerns regarding China and Russia are as severe as Defence officials would want to us to believe, then I dare say that it must be quite “problematic” that we already find ourselves in compromised territorial situations within our own Nation States…

In the case of conventional, State actor-warfare, it could very well might be that our professional fighters are sent out to confront a traditional enemy, while their home territory (that has already been compromised) fall to imported and/or native insurgents; the insurgents might even strike a deal with the more conventional enemies so that our own fighters find themselves locked-in and surrounded.

It will require quite the genius to first defeat the Chinese and the Russians, only to head back home to another battlefield. In fact it very well might be that there will be no home to come back to at all.

Not to mention that the main battle could easily be sabotaged if your headquarter falls.

This means that regardless of how one chooses to think and regardless of what might be on top of one’s priority list, the destabilisation of Europe and of America cannot be brushed under the carpet any longer.

It is a bi-partisan issue that transcends all and everything. It simply has to deal with the survival of our tribes and cultures.

The fact that we have to wait in anticipation to see whether elections grant us the leadership required to tackle our current continental crisis is nothing but tragic.

If a continental decision could be made it would be in everyone’s interest, after all it must compromise NATO’s efficiency and operational ability that so many of its member Nations finds themselves in such an unfortunate internal predicament.

And if it doesn’t compromise the preparations that these countries are currently undertaking in preparation for any potential future conventional war efforts, then it probably will once the fighting starts.

If you have no control now, then what makes you think that you will under such circumstances as described above; especially since our militaries are professional, which means that “life-will-go-on-as-usual” for the vast majority of the population, who at this point in time stand face to face with threats that our current enforcement establishments have either no desire to solve or even worse: no ability to solve.

In other words; even if your main concerns are Russia and China it cannot be ignored that the current political situation in the U.S.A. & Europe poses a fundamental threat to any future victories.

You will need your country to be there for you so that you can fight for your country; yet what makes you think that it will if you gaze upon the current internal landscape?

 

An Open Letter to Liberals and Centrists — evolutionistx

I highly recommend reading this very interesting article about voting patterns and demographics! It is not too long and it is well-written. Check it out!

Welcome. Come in, take a seat. Would you like some tea? Don’t worry, we aren’t even evil–though you might not want to tell your friends you’ve been here. They might not understand. In light of the recent election craziness, it’s time for a serious discussion. First, some basic facts: Here’s some poll data on the […]

via An Open Letter to Liberals and Centrists — evolutionistx

Censorship, Freedom & Sovereignty In “Europe.”

All of a sudden, out of nowhere, like a lightening bolt out of the blue, I couldn’t read certain news sites anymore since they had been “blocked by the EU.”

This literally happened over-night.

I took some screenshots of it, since I was planning to write about how the European territory is becoming increasingly like some “Soviet-spin-off.”

living in the EU

It is an interesting thing to experience since nobody really refers to themselves as “European” nor do anyone refer to their own territory as part of “Europe.”

“This is the U.K., Europe equals everyone else.”

“This is Scandinavia, Europe (again) equals everyone else.”

Yet the E.U. has the power to decide what ought to be accessed and read by everyone who lives under their jurisdiction, which certainly raises the question of national sovereignty….

It is also of interest since we learn about the Soviet Union in school and how horrible it was that “people were spied on,” that there was “limited freedom of speech,” that “information was being controlled,” etc;

In our “Western territories” we have “freedom of speech” as one of our “golden values,” which is of interest when considering that there are other territories on this planet who have no freedom of speech at all officially, which sounds horrid, but at least give people clearer guide-lines. Maybe “freedom of speech” is an illusion to crack down on dissenters? It can certainly be used that way I’m sure … you think you have freedom of speech, but oooops, apparently you do not.

In the same spirit I was going to write about the social media site GAB, that was all of a sudden shut down and mysteriously removed. Just like the E.U. censorship, that too happened remarkably quickly. The reason given was that the Synagogue-shooter over in the U.S.A. had a profile on their site. For some strange unexplainable reason though, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube still stand, despite being linked to Islamic terrorists, drug cartels, ethnic cleansing and major data leaks. The list of extremist (and unethical) behaviour goes on, which naturally will make one wonder: what sort of extremism is considered less extreme or more acceptable than others? A good question indeed….

GAB 1

I myself, have been trying to watch some of Donald J. Trump’s rally speeches via YouTube, but whenever I’ve tried to check out what he is actually doing and saying at his events, “the spinning wheel of doom” appears out of nowhere and I’m literally prevented from watching. If I manage to stream a speech, it doesn’t take long before everything “hangs” which means that I have to refresh my window indefinitely, since the problem doesn’t go away … mysteriously enough….

Yesterday I finally managed to watch my first rally, courtesy of my mother.

The energy level and the optimism could be felt all the way from America. It was a patriotic, enthusiastic speech that energised the huge crowd present.

There was nothing divisive, nothing hateful, nothing loathsome.

Since I’ve lived in the U.S. on several occasions I’ve seen for myself the derelict state of their country, it makes me happy to see that there is an effort in place to get America back on its feet. We need the same drive and optimism over here in “Europe” for sure; a country that looses faith in itself is a country that will cease to exist.

CENSORSHIP EU

Having A Raison D’être & An End Game – The Impression One Can Get.

When reading about the Iraq war last year I was stunned to see the willingness to sacrifice the integrity of Europe on the altar of momentary territorial access needed in order to get into Iraq.

“Plan Of Attack” by Bob Woodward.

“Decision Points” by George W. Bush.

I was further mystified by the fact that 4-star Army General (ret.) Colin Powell came across as the one lone voice of reason, since he tried to raise awareness of tribalism and ethnic diversity in the targeted area.

The reading certainly gave me the impression that humans are simply being seen as replaceable cogs in the machinery by the establishment.

Culture and ethnicity simply doesn’t matter, it is all about momentary victory, without any overarching solid narrative selling a clearly defined End Game, that will be reached by many separate actions all serving the same underlying objective.

This is a startling realisation.

When reading “The Art Of War” I was surprised about what sort of advice it contained. Prolonged warfare with no end in sight is depicted as one of the worst projects that a Nation can ever engage in. A group that engages in warfare also have to ensure that they have access to an efficient supply line, taking advantage of whatever resources the group can get their hands on as they expand into a territory. A war effort should be swift and precise, without too much meddling from sovereigns located far away. The people who are on the ground need to be able to do what is necessary to reach their goal in a completely mobilised way, to the extent that this is possible.

All of this certainly made me question the sort of warfare that people my age have grown accustomed to. All of our Nations’ war efforts seem concentrated in “alien territories,” fighting and training “aliens” that might turn on the West later, and all of our Nations’ major war efforts seemingly drag out for ever…

No proper end game that logically makes sense is ever presented to the public and when getting an insight into the world of those who run these things, it doesn’t really seem like these characters know what the deal is either (unless a battle ground is simply needed in order to train soldiers and test new equipment).

Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

A parallel can be drawn to hacker activists, who don’t seem too concerned with allies. They’ll attack an enemy of the West one day only to target Western political and military structures the next, potentially jeopardising the integrity and safety of a Nation State or its military operations.

When reading about community organisers you see this pattern of behaviour once again.  A lot of left-wing activism simply cancels itself out, since the only common denominator seems to be emotionalism. Due to this you’ll get contradicting agitation and advocacy that will leave someone like myself slightly confused, as there is no End Game in sight anywhere.

If you look at Islamic agitation in Europe it is very easy to understand what their End Game and overarching goal is. They engage in demographic expansionism into Europe, which gradually gives them a political advantage. Wealthy Muslim power-players buy themselves into Western Corporations which gives them cultural influence and leverage. Street-level Muslims carve out their own territories and then defend these. Mosques are erected further cementing a claim to a specific territory boosting confidence, while a romanticized fantasy of Islamic Imperialism, appealing to people’s sense of identity and innate penchant for ancestry-worship, is promoted. Of course, as always, not all. But you don’t need every member of a specific group to behave in this particular fashion for it to have its desired effect. My impression of European Islamification is that there is a long-term vision, coupled with a willingness to commit to certain behaviours, in order to eventually reach a clearly defined outcome: Nation States that become compatible in their policies and in their cultures with the Muslim faith, preferably paving the way for a new “Golden-Age.” Of course it is of importance to point out the ethnic and racial diversity within Islam, and that there are numerous conflicting denominations within the faith as well. As an example: we can now clearly observe, imported tribal disagreements and feuds, in Europe, in addition to all of our own inter-ethnic issues that we had from before….

Inter-ethnic dissonance is very prevalent in Africa; which is generally referred to as the most diverse continent on the surface of the earth.

So what can be said of the West? What is our End Game? What can be observed and what conclusions can be drawn? 

What would make sense, instinctively,  would be to have common ancestry as the glue holding Europe together. Race has become way more inclusive than what it used to be, since we now largely see Race as something observable, while ethnic groups give us what has become our European Nation States, with its specific cultures and characteristics.  Back in the day these used to be chopped up into various tribes that probably displayed a lot of similar traits to one another, hence our generalisation regarding population groups contained within the boundaries of the modern Nation State: an extended family sharing common ancestry and a similar distribution of genetic traits on average.

It would make sense if our Nation States in Europe concerned themselves with the protection of our shared and individual cultural heritage, doing everything to ensure the survival and majority status of white children (and mixed whites) in the only territory that actually belongs a 100% to whites, protecting our continent’s borders and integrity.

A strong unified Europe and more broadly speaking, a strong unified West with the more multi-racial configurations found within territories conquered by whites, would in theory make sense.

Is this an End Game for what is collectively known as The West though? No.

This would be a racist objective. It would insinuate that Ethnic-Europeans have a natural claim to a specific territory and that conquest is a legitimate way to establish a Nation, which is what a white presence in all other territories other than Europe is a result of. (To my knowledge … It certainly looks that way when observing strange geographic settlements by Whites and the presence of dark-skinned indigenous groups).

The prevalent mythos championed in the West is this:

  1. that all other groups are minorities, even if Europe looks very small when compared to other continents, and we are outnumbered globally speaking.
  2. That the magic soil theory is truth, meaning that you’ll automatically become  Swedish by simply breathing the air in Sweden.
  3. That all human beings are born equal due to a blank slate, and that genetics simply don’t exist.
  4. That talking about genetics and genuine diversity is dangerous because that will instantly turn you into Hitler and result in a new Holocaust.
  5. That it makes sense to celebrate white ethnic groups becoming minorities, after years of civil-rights battles in the U.S.A. to ensure equal opportunity regardless of skin colour, and after years of Whites trying to do good towards previously marginalised and abused non-white minority groups within their domains. Not to forget: the constant focus on the challenges faced by so-called (and genuine) minorities within traditionally White-majority constructs. None of this paints minority-status in an appealing light … yet we should do everything in our power to lay the groundwork for our own marginalisation…. which is particularly interesting when reading about the merciless brutality in other parts of the world perpetrated by non-white majorities…
  6. That previous white expansionism will just be forgotten, since Whites have decided to “play nice,” which means that we no longer have any enemies and don’t really need any borders….
  7. That only white ethnic groups can be guilty of racism and imperialistic activity.
  8. That white ethnic groups are not under any circumstance “indigenous” and that there will at no point be any need to give any white demographic the status of “protected group.”
  9. That race and/or ethnicity is only real and only counts if/when dealing with “indigenous people,” who can under no circumstance be white. These “indigenous” groups are also the only ones entitled to certain territories that have to be protected in order to ensure their survival.
  10. That charity is only needed in the 3rd world as it is probably your own fault if you are poor and hungry in the superior, egalitarian, socialist inspired constructs that make up the Western World.
  11. That you have to import workers from Africa and The Middle East, rather than employing individuals from territories closer to your own, or within your own continent.
  12. That mixing on a massive scale is always peaceful and not the result of violent demographic change or militant conquest.
  13. That re-writing history and engaging in gas-lighting on a National and/or Continental level is perfectly alright in order to salvage vanity projects initiated by international organisations, that might look good on paper and in theory; until inserting the human factor into the equation actually implementing the idea.

Ok. So this doesn’t look too promising. Then what about Christianity? This is multi-racial, multiethnic and global. It is way more inclusive and has been used as a unifying factor in Europe before…

The West has continuously acted as an enemy to Christian groups in the Middle East, facilitating genocidal persecution of genuine Christian minority tribes. Western governments not only promote the build-down of Christianity within Europe and all other territories under White influence, they actively side with Nations and regimes known for violent Christian persecution.

What about human-rights, enlightenment ideas, world peace and the “human race”?

Western governments have repeatedly sided with regimes guilty of outrageous human rights abuses, making themselves guilty of gross hypocrisy since human rights and the protection of humanity as a whole has become the main narrative and general raison d’être of Western groups.

Portraying oneself as a defender of the human race also becomes tricky as you cannot possible go out there and claim that population group A needs more protection and privileges than population group B as this would be racist and undermine universal rights. And how on earth can you even say population group A and B when race/ethnicity isn’t even real? You cannot say that religious group A is more guilty of persecution than religious group B, because why would religious group B be more righteous or in need of more protection than the other? Are you a bigot or what?

Who are you to say that Terrorists don’t have rights or don’t have a point, when you claim to be a defender of all of humanity? And how on earth do you even define a “War on Terror” or “Terrorists”? Any person or group could fall into this category when nothing is specified.

These kind of points can be spinned indefinitely putting The West in a situation where none of its actions can be seen as righteous and/or legitimate.

It opens up the door for a potential legal, moral and PR nightmare where The West and its natural inhabitants never win.

It also puts Western Nation states in a situation where an enemy cannot be clearly defined, at least not in public, due to important exotic alliances and potential diplomatic disasters. By relying on exotic alliances for abstract military operations, the West paints  itself into a corner, where they cannot kick out subversive elements within their own nations if these stem from their good “friends and allies.”

The West is forced into a position where it cannot really look after the interests of its own inhabitants, nor enforce the heritage and integrity of itself.

Not to forget that The West is put into an incredibly awkward situation when Western leaders cannot clearly formulate anything, if interested in maintaining good international relationships.

This results in cringe worthy narratives that leaves all of those who don’t just parrot our “modern shared values” confused and puzzled. What are we all about really? Does anyone know?

What about Capitalism then? A support for this must surely be a constant factor from The Americans at least? 

No. Think again. The U.S.A. is willing to tolerate oppressive communist regimes that in the long run pose a threat to the American experiment and their global influence, as long as the U.S.A. can gain from such an alliance in the short run.

So what is The End Game of The West? 

Strangely and worryingly enough there doesn’t seem to be one……(but I might be very wrong, after all, who knows what goes on behind the scenes…).

At best it can be argued that there are forces within The West championing stability trough whatever means by expanding the police state and surveillance of their own citizens. This though is worked against by leaders who don’t want to acknowledge the effects of demographic change. In addition it facilitates the very form of governance that Western Nations are outspokenly against, not to forget that the identity destruction currently happening in The Western world work against any conservation efforts intended to protect our cultural and ethnic inheritance, while simultaneously compromising stability and security; in short, all of it compromises the survival of those people who occupy the territories that we collectively refer to as The West.

 

“Plan Of Attack” by Bob Woodward.

This entry has been edited since it just dawned upon me that I probably got a bit carried away when quoting the book. Rather than quoting huge sections I’ve removed the majority of this but have kept the page numbers. I intend to go over all of my other book reviews and do the same. (26th of December 2018)

“The press reports of smiling Iraqis leading inspectors around, opening up buildings and saying, “See, there is nothing here,” infuriated Bush, who then would read intelligence reports showing the Iraqis were moving and concealing things.” (p.253)

Preemptive war yea or nay? Should your country play on the defensive or on the offensive? This is the question one must ask when judging and reading about the Iraq war and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Where people stand on that issue in general will differ tremendously. I have no doubt where I’m at, but I also realise that maintaining static viewpoints might not be such a good idea regardless of how well intended they may be.

North-Korea doesn’t look particularly promising. Nazi-Germany was allowed to grow and look how that turned out.

After having read “Decision Points” by George W. Bush., my curiosity was not satisfied and I instantly plunged into another Bush-era book, this one authored by liberal journalist Bob Woodward. It is surreal that the Iraq war and Bush’s presidency are now confined to history books as it feels like yesterday when the passenger planes hit the twin towers not to forget the build up to the highly controversial Iraq war.

I realise now after having read Woodward’s work that Bush’s take on events is slightly superficial in comparison. Many events and sentiments are perfectly aligned which is good to see, but Woodward retells the build up to the Iraq war by utilising different perspectives and seeing matters through multiple lenses, which makes for a very interesting book.

It is nothing short of fascinating to read about General Frank’s war planning, with interference from Rumsfeld;  covert operations are of particular interest, the same can be said of “creating an urgency within the Iraqi population to remove Saddam” to paraphrase. The reason this struck a chord is obviously due to our own current situation over here in Europe. Are we being messed with; walking to and fro like senseless sheep? It isn’t strange that people start believing in all sorts of conspiracy theories.

 p.202.

It also caught my attention that the Americans planned to reduce Iraq’s military capabilities while demilitarizing their society. Hmm … I wonder which part of the world this makes me think of…..

Even though Rumsfeld has been heavily criticised left-right-and-centre I found his approach of gradually increasing troops in the Middle East in order to stay off the press-radar quite cool. Yet his intelligence on WMD and how he communicated this to senators does not reflect well on his character:

(p.171)

Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” can be felt throughout “Plan Of Attack,” funny enough. I recognise so many of the lessons mentioned in the old classic I couldn’t help but smirk in certain places and I now feel compelled to re-read the work which I read for the first time earlier this year: A Book About Warfare.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the soldier selected to lead the campaign, Gen. Tommy Franks, called Pentagon number-three man Doug Feith “the stupidest f*cking guy on the face of the planet.” Taken from John Taylor.

While civilians get an impression of complete inadequacy when it comes to western leadership, don’t despair as it is not all bad. Thankfully. Warriors & Citizens – American Views of Our Military edited by Kori Schake & Jim Mattis.

Colin Powell is the star of the show as he tried to warn Bush of everything that could go wrong. He felt that nobody else had properly briefed the president on the potential risks:

(pp.150-151)

I guess the complexity in terms of American leadership can best be described by referring to a dinner party starting on page 409; Adelman, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby were celebrating the successful invasion of Iraq. In awe over America’s military superiority the gentlemen mocked “the reluctant warrior” Powell as overthrowing Saddam had been a walk in the park. Toasting to the steadfast leadership of George W. Bush the scenario became awkward when Adelman said: “Let me ask, before this turns into a love fest. I was just stunned that we have not found weapons of mass destruction.” There were several hundred thousand troops and others combing the country. “We’ll find them,” Wolfowitz said. “It’s only been four days really,” Cheney said. “We’ll find them.”

“CENTCOM reported to the president that two Republican Guard divisions were now combat-ineffective.” (p.406) I just pasted this in as “combat-ineffective” sounds just as hilarious as “enhanced interrogation.” 

Throughout the book there seems to be an absolute obsession from certain members of the Bush administration to find a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. To their credit it has been said that Hussein was on the USA’s radar before 9/11 as he was being “problematic.” Yet they did not succeed in finding any links besides a strain of intelligence deemed dubious suggesting that one of the hijackers had met in Prague with an individual assumed to be part of the Iraqi special forces/intelligence.

 

 

 

He saw in Cheney a sad transformation. (p.292)

(p.298)

According to the information as described by Woodward there were always holes in the intelligence that the Bush administration were presented with. Several of the intelligence briefings did not leave the audience convinced with the exception of Cheney; who according to other’s had an unhealthy fixation on Saddam.

Yet Bush was horrified by Saddam’s style of governance and was not the least interested in sitting on the fence if a nuke went off in the USA, courtesy of Saddam. He felt strongly that it was in the national interest to take him out, bringing peace and democracy to the Iraqi people as Saddam was seen as an unstable element in the region, Bush was clearly troubled and worried about sending American soldiers into war and utterly shocked by the fact that no WMD were found.

 (p.379)

 

(p.387)

In the Epilogue it is described how an investigation into faulty intelligence work was launched when it became clear that there were no WMD:

 (p.439)

It must have been especially difficult to be Colin Powell as CIA Director Tenet, “the one who had assured Bush that the case on WMD was a “slam dunk.” Later went out in public stating that:

(p.440)

When Woodward interviewed Bush for his book he obviously asked about the missing WMD. Keep in mind that the USA went to war in order to disarm a nuclear Saddam:

 (p.423)

There is also a funny section mentioning the never-ending beef we Norwegians got with the Swedes 😛

 (p.250)

” … Cheney was convinced that Blix, from traditionally pacifist Sweden, would not be tough enough.” (p.224)

Some more quotes from “Plan Of Attack”:

 

(p.173)

(p.275)

“We believe that Islam like Christianity can grow in a free and democratic manner.” – George W. Bush (p.276)

(p.340)

On page 432 it is described how Rove felt that the odds were in their favour in regards to Bush’s second term. Since Kerry had been a supporter of the war in Iraq and was part of the Washington establishment, Rove felt that he could easily be portrayed as an hypocritical opportunist.

What I found of interest were Kerry’s reasons for criticising the handling of Iraq including that Bush “was too eager to go to war when Saddam was isolated and weak.”

Is it not a fantastic idea to crush an enemy when they are in fact “isolated and weak?”

The only critique I have of Woodward’s work is that I found his sentence structure and style – unfamiliar. But this says more about my habits rather than a lack of talent or anything as such on his part. It was an enjoyable book for sure and one that I would highly recommend.

If you’re interested in war literature you should also check out this one: The War Has No Female Face.

General Tommy Franks.

An unflattering article about Rumsfeld’s management style.

Deus Vult.

An interesting article about Georgia.

An interesting article about Hiroshima.