When the Guns Fire

Two weeks into the war—no need to explain which war I am referring to here—the situation appears to be as follows.

 

 

General

Contrary to the view of some of us, who considering the military balance predicted a fast and fairly easy Russian Blitzkrieg, this is turning out to be a prolonged and quite bloody war. Unless some miracle happens, it will get worse before it gets better.

Military Operations

Russian military operations are being conducted in full force and with few if any restraints. 

 

Coming from several directions at once, they have succeeded in occupying one important city (Kherson) and are currently besieging and shelling several others. As one would expect from the side that is short of almost everything, Ukrainian resistance, though deserving of all respect, appears to be sporadic and ill-coordinated with each city and each force acting more or less on their own. Though Russian airpower does not play as much of a role as most people thought it would, it does dominate the sky. Still the Russians have not yet got even close to breaking the Ukrainian will to resist and fight. Perhaps, to the contrary.

Spread and Escalation

Contrary to many predictions, too, so far the war has remained inside Ukraine and did not spread to neighboring countries such as Moldavia and Poland.

Nevertheless, spread (“horizontal escalation, as it is sometimes called) and escalation remains very real possibilities. Suffice a single mistake, most likely in connection with NATO aircraft overlying Ukrainian territory (either deliberately or by accident) or with a Russian attacks on NATO attempts to assist Ukraine, to set Europe aflame and perhaps bring it to a glowing end. No wonder NATO is resisting President Zelensky’s calls for the establishment of a 

 

non-flight ban over his country. But it is not going to happen.

The Situation in Russia

The sanctions are really hurting Russia’s population. Not so much because people are starving, as they were during under Stalin in 1930-31 as well as during and immediately after World War II. But because of their sense of being cut off from the world. Including news emanating from any sources except their own government, not known as the most truthful in the world. The oligarchs have also taken heavy losses.

On the other hand, there is no sign of serious opposition to Putin. Claims about him being angry with his generals—at any rate, angry enough for it to make a difference—also seem to be without sufficient foundation in fact.

Economic Impact

The sanctions on Russia apart, the impact of the war on the global economy has been very serious. Production is down, inflation is up. That is especially true for such products as energy (oil and gas) and wheat. Gold is king. As always, though, there are those who prof

 

it. Including, above all, owners and producers of the commodities in question. And including arms manufacturers in many places around the world.

On one hand, the international rating agencies keep announcing Russia’s imminent bankruptcy. On the other, Russia is among the greatest profiteers. Not only is it among the largest producers of both energy and wheat, but it sells them dear to whomever will buy. Primarily, it seems, China. Now even Germany has announced it cannot do without Russian gas. Which of these two trends prevails we shall see soon enough.

As I am writing these lines on 9 March the Euro is slightly up against the dollar whereas gold and gas are slightly down. Are people getting used to the new reality? Again, we shall see soon enough.

International Impact

The Russian attack on Ukraine has brought almost all of Europe’s remaining countries closer together. Countries that always refused to join NATO and/or the EU (which is also an alliance against attack, albeit that it is seldom mentioned) are now actively considering doing just that. Good; but one doubts whether it can last.

Some false prophets notwithstanding, so far the war has not led China to mount an attack on Taiwan. Instead, the Chinese leadership seems to be weighting its options. There is a good chance that, if the war continues as it almost certainly will, China will emerge as the great tertius gaudens. Without firing a shot, what is more.

 

Attempts to End the War

So far, none of any importance. But clearly any solution, even if it does not fully meet Putin’s initial demands, can only come at the expense of Ukraine. Given how fearful NATO is, such a solution is not impossible. But it will take time.

 

Varia

Following decades of neglect, events are forcing Europe’s politicians as well as its populations to take war and the military seriously. There is even occasional talk of a return to conscription. However, it probably won’t happen. Even if it does, putting the necessary arrangements in place, procuring the necessary weapons and equipment, and organizing the necessary training will take years.

Following decades of feminist b.s, it turns out that few if any women participate in combat either on the Ukrainian side or, much less so, the Russian one. Ukrainian men are expected to fight and are barred from leaving the country, which some consider a violation of their human rights; Ukrainian women are not. Had events not been as tragic as they are, one could almost have said, “alles in ordnung” (everything is OK).

To Sum Up

The first casualty is the truth. Which incidentally means that there is no way to verify the casualty figures published by both sides.

Ukraine, Russia, Europe and the world are in an even greater mess than usual.

When the guns fire, the children cry.

A Very Bad Man

The war in Ukraine goes on and on. Though analysts are as numerous as flies on a heap of you know what, the truth is that one knows how it is going to end. Such being the case, I want to put my latest thoughts on record.

First, Putin may be a very bad man. However, there is no point in continually saying so. Based on historical reasoning, he is doing what he believes he must on behalf of his country. That historical reasoning itself is neither better nor worse than any other reasoning of this kind; part reality, part myth, part propaganda. Never mind. To cope with him, it is first of all necessary to understand what he thinks, why, and what can and cannot be done about it. The more so because he has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world.

Second, this is a war of survival not only for Ukraine but for Russia as well. In the case of Ukraine, that is because defeat would reduce it to a Russian province. Much as it used to be since 1793 when Catherine the Great joined Austria and Prussia in partitioning Poland, a move which for the first time took Russia to the shores of the Black Sea. In the case of Russia it is because, should this struggle be lost, the country can expect to disintegrate into who knows many warring fragments. Just as happened in 1990. Recovery, even supposing it will be possible at all, will take decades. See, as an example of what it may be like, The Time of Troubles (1598-1613).

Third, this is going to be a long and bloody conflict. Albeit that it may have taken a little longer than was originally planned—not something at all unusual in war—the Russians have reached Ukraine’s most important cities and put them under siege. They have not, however taken them. As I have written before, urban warfare is perhaps the most difficult form of war an attacking force can engage on. Just think of the months-long battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43, and you’ll know what I mean.

Fourth, even if the Russians do succeed in occupying the cities, the war, taking the form of insurrection, guerrilla, and terrorism will go on. As, to mention but two recent examples, it did in both Afghanistan and Iraq. True Ukraine, being flat, does not present the best terrain on which to wage these forms of warfare. Compared to many others, the Russians also enjoy the important advantage of being able to understand the language. But two factors are working in the other direction. One is the sheer size of the country and the population, which threaten to swamp any occupying force (that is why, back in 1793, the Russians were able to occupy it in the first place was because it was practically uninhabited). The other, the ready availability of every kind of assistance from NATO, which can only increase as time goes on.

Fifth, Putin’s forces are said to be using some unorthodox weapons capable of causing many casualties and inflicting immense damage on buildings in particular. Particularly important are so called thermobaric weapons that operate by detonating a mixture of air and fuel, resulting in an extraordinarily powerful explosion as well as extremely high temperatures. But Putin is not the only one to use them.  Americans did so both at Hue in 1968 and at Fallujah in December 2004; and both the Americans and the British used them in Afghanistan. So who are they to complain?

Sixth, whether Russia will break under the sanctions is uncertain. My own guess it that it won’t. Partly that because the Russians can take almost anything. And partly because Germany e.g depends on Russia for 51 percent of its oil and gas; without them, German industry will soon come to a standstill. Vice versa, the one certainty is that the war will break the economy of the Ukraine.

Seventh, the only way Putin can win this war is by finding some Ukrainians able and willing to set up a government that will collaborate with him. That, however, seems unlikely to happen.

Finally, in this war as in any other the first casualty is the truth. That is one reason why anyone who believes he can see into the future is welcome to try and so so.

 

War in Ukraine

Asked to predict the future of the war in the Ukraine, I took another look at a book I wrote a couple of years ago. English title, Looking into the Future: A History of Prediction. Working on it taught me two things. First, as everyone knows prediction is extremely difficult and often misses the mark. Not seldom with disastrous consequences; as happened in 1914 when statesmen and soldiers predicted a short and easy war (“you will be home before the leaves fall form the trees,” the Kaiser told his soldiers) but found themselves involved in the largest, most deadly, armed conflict in history until then. And second, the methods we use today—questionnaires among experts (the so-called Delphi method), mathematical models, artificial intelligence, what have you—are no better than those that people used thousands of years ago. Such as astrology (Babylon), manipulating yarrow stalks (China), watching birds and consulting oracles (Greece), reading the entrails of sacrificial animals (Rome), interpreting dreams (in all known civilizations), and so on.

I am a historian, so readers will have to forgive me for basing my thought on historical methods. Primarily analogies on one hand and trends on the other.

Here goes.

* Ukraine is surrounded by Russia on all sides except the west, where it borders on Poland, Moldavia and Romania. It consists almost entirely of flat, open country (the famous “Black Earth”). The only mountains are the Carpathians in the southwest and the Crimean Mountains in the extreme south along the coast. There are some large rivers which can form serious obstacles for an attacker. But only if they are properly defended; which, owing to their length, would be hard to do. Here and there are some low. One also encounters quite a number of deep ravines, the best known of which is Babi Yar. But neither form serious obstacles to traffic, particularly tracked traffic. The roads are better than they used to be during World War II and there are more of them; however, with just 2.8 kilometers of them per square kilometer of territory (versus 1.5 in Germany) they are still not up to West European standards. The climate is continental, meaning hot and dry (often uncomfortably so) in summer, extremely cold (with lots of snow) in winter, and rain spread during most of the year.

* Russia has nuclear weapons, whereas Ukraine does not. That is a pity; had it had such weapons as well as a secure second strike force of vehicles to deliver them, war would almost certainly have been out of the question. However, for Putin’s present purpose it does not matter. The last things he wants to do before he occupies Ukraine is to turn it into a radioactive desert. Thanks in part to the help they get from NATO, during recent years the Ukrainian armed forces have grown considerably stronger and better equipped. Fighting morale, based primarily on popular memory of the way Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians in 1930-32, is said to be high. Nevertheless, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively are the forces in question a match for the Russian ones.

* Initially at any rate both sides will rely primarily on the usual conventional weapons: aircraft (which are particularly useful over open terrain as opposed to such as is mountainous or forested), tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, as well as the motorized columns they need to sustain them. However, they will also make heavy use of less traditional methods. Such as maskirovska (deception), signals warfare, electronic warfare, and, last not least, cyberwarfare. All these are fields in which the Russians have specialized for a long time past and in which they are acknowledged masters; in this respect they are in tune with their master, Putin, who himself rose by way of the intelligence services.

* At the moment the Russians the Russians are attacking Ukraine from all directions simultaneously without any clear Schwerpunkt. The Donbas apart, objectives include Kharkov, Kiev, several other key cities, and perhaps the Black Sea and Sea of Azov coasts. Faithful to their long-standing doctrine of “battle in depth,” the Russians attack not just at the front but far behind it as well.

* The Russians will not find it too difficult to “overrun” (whatever that may mean) most of a country as large and as sparsely populated as Ukraine. However, taking the most important cities—Kiev, Kharkov, and Odessa—will be a different matter and will surely only be accomplished by heavy and very destructive fighting. Followed, most probably by guerrilla and terrorism. The way, say, things happened in Iraq.
These pills are surely cheap super cialis better than other ED pills available in the market. For the medical therapy, they have to consult a sexologist to get the right treatment of medicines and fix it quickly. viagra prescription Erectile dysfunction is one of those sexual issues where the man is incapable cialis price in canada of obtaining and preserving an erection, for successful completion of the sex act. You can t take it as a sort of diseases in today’s time, one of the many diseases that specifically strikes men, not only their body but also hits their soul is Erectile Dysfunction. viagra 25mg prix
* Forget about sanctions. They will not deter the Russians. Just as Stalin used to give enormous banquets even during the height of World War II, so Putin and his clique will barely notice them. Whereas the people are used to make do without almost everything. Except vodka, of course, and even consumption of that is said to have fallen over the last few years.

* NATO, with the US at its head, will be involved in the war, but only marginally and without sending troops to participate in the fighting. Instead it will dispatch “defensive” weapons (whatever those may be), provide supplies and intelligence, and perhaps help evacuate some of the wounded as well as assist Ukrainian refugees. All the while continuing to tell anyone who wants to listen, and some of those who do not want to listen, how bad the Russians are, etc. etc.

* China can be expected to make some sympathetic noises. That apart, it will get involved only lightly by expanding trade so as to offset some of the sanctions. It may also use the opportunity to do something about Taiwan. Or not.

* Should the war turn into guerrilla and terrorism, as it very likely will, it may very well open the door to the death of perhaps fifty Ukrainians for every soldier the Russians lose (in Vietnam the ratio was about 75 to one). Even so Putin will still be unable to end the war, which he can do only by setting up a new collaborationist Ukrainian government.

* Though it is likely to happen later rather than sooner, there is a good chance that Putin will find Ukraine stuck in his throat; to quote a Hebrew saying, neither to swallow nor to puke. Given enough time, the outcome will assuredly be to make the war less and less popular inside Russia itself. The Russians will end by withdrawing.

* Just as the defeat in Afghanistan played a key role in the collapse of Communism, so a defeat in Ukraine will almost certainly mean the end of Putin’s regime. Much worse for Russia, it may well cause it to fall back into one of those terrible periods of anarchy it has gone through in the past and which it is Putin’s supreme objective to prevent. He can barely conceal his anxiety in this respect; as by assuring his listeners that 2022 is not 1919 (the year in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks came closest to defeat).

Finally:

Though based on history, in truth all this is little better than guesswork. It is as Woody Allen said: Do you want to make God laugh? Tell him about your plans.

A Guide to the Perplexed

A Guide to the Perplexed is the title of a book by Maimonides (Moshe Ben Maimon) one of Judaism’s greatest scholars/philosophers who lived during the second half of the twelfth century CE. Here I am using it as the title of an attempt to sort out some of the most important “new” forms of war invented, mostly by American officers, think tank personnel, academics and journalists over the last few decades.

*

Airland battle. A form of close air force/ground forces tactical and operational cooperation pioneered by the Luftwaffe during World War II and revived by the US during the late 1970s as part of the maneuver warfare school (q.v). of that period.

Asymmetric war. A term referring to an armed conflict waged by powerful, mostly state-owned and regular, armed forces and their smaller, either state-or non-state owned, irregular opponents.

Bushfire war. A term coined during the 1950s to describe the African and Asian wars of decolonization and the attempts of the colonial countries, almost all of them unsuccessful, to win them.

Cyberwar. A kind of war waged not in physical space but inside computers with the aid of data links, artificial intelligence, and similar contrivances. Extremely secretive, said to be ubiquitous and capable of destroying entire societies without them even noticing that it has got under way, so far it seems to have resulted in not a single human life lost.

Effect-based operations. Defined as “operations conceived and planned in a systems framework that considers the full range of direct, indirect, and cascading effects—effects that may, with different degrees of probability, be achieved by the application of military, diplomatic, psychological, and economic instruments.”

Guerrilla. The term originated in the second half of the eighteenth century when it referred to small-scale operations waged by light troops away from the belligerents’ main forces. Made famous during the Spanish resistance to the Napoleonic occupation, today it refers to irregular warfare (q.v) waged, mostly in covert form, against occupying forces.

Infowar. “A concept involving the battlespace use and management of information and communication technology (ICT) in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare is the manipulation of information trusted by a target without the target’s awareness so that the target will make decisions against their interest but in the interest of the one conducting information warfare.”

Insurgency/counterinsurgency. Insurgency is a violent attempt by a population or organization to overthrow a government, domestic or foreign, they consider illegitimate When protracted it tends to merge with terrorism (q.v) and/or guerrilla (q.v),

Low intensity war.  A war waged (at least on one side, sometimes on both) without benefit of state control over the armed forces, large numbers of troops, or many heavy weapons.
One pill of cialis online more than a decade now. The amount cheapest price for sildenafil of stress, fatigue and depression it produces interferes with the excitement and testosterone level. Some of these conditions comprise icks.org commander cialis of hormonal imbalance, neurological disorders, vascular (blood vessel) disease, heart disease and diabetes and chronic diseases that your body is undergoing. As http://icks.org/n/bbs/content.php?co_id=FALL_WINTER_2018 canadian viagra professional failed sex attempts increases man goes into depression.
Maneuver warfare. Around 1980 Western armed forces felt that, in case of war on the “Central” (i.e European) Front, they were likely to be beaten by the so-called Soviet “steamroller.” To prepare themselves for a possible Soviet invasion, they went back to the German World War II method of maneuver warfare in which maneuver and a decentralized “mission style” command system played a great role.

Mosaic war. “This new design concept would confound enemies by presenting a highly adaptable web of sensors, shooters, and decision-makers enabled by advanced computing. That network—named for the adaptable, piecemeal art form—should be able to assemble and disassemble itself into infinite new combinations on the fly.” The idea is to “disaggregate what [the USAF in particular”) can do across multiple platforms and sensors… reducing vulnerabilities for US forces and complicating the problem facing adversaries.” 

Neocortical war. “Warfare that strives to control or shape the behavior of enemy organisms, but without destroying the organisms. It does this by influencing, even to the point of regulating, the consciousness, perceptions and will of the adversary’s leadership: the enemy’s neocortical system. In simple ways, neocortical warfare attempts to penetrate adversaries’ recurring and simultaneous cycles of ‘observation, orientation, decision and action.’ In complex ways, it strives to present the adversary’s leaders—its collective brain— with perceptions, sensory and cognitive data designed to result in a narrow and controlled (or an overwhelmingly large and disorienting) range of calculations and evaluations. The product of these evaluations and calculations are adversary choices that correspond to our desired choices.”

Regular/irregular war. Regular war is waged by state-owned, bureaucratically organized, armed forces against opponents of the same kind; irregular war, by non-state owned organizations either against the government or against each other.

Resource war. The idea that, as the earth’s population grows, future war will be primarily about natural resources. As if there were anything new about this.

Spacewar. A form of war waged primarily by assets, such as satellites, located in outer space. It may, however, also be waged space-to-earth and earth-to-space. The primary objective would be to disrupt enemy communications as well as command, control, and intelligence-gathering capabilities.

Swarming warfare. Swarming means that rather than operate as a single block under a unified command, our forces are going to rely on multiple devices (mainly drones) attacking the enemy in a decentralized, yet coordinated, way. The objective is to overload his ability to respond and, in the end, bring about his collapse.

Terrorism. A form of low-level guerrilla warfare (q.v) or insurgency (q.v) in which one side, being too weak to stand up to their opponents, rely primarily on stealth in order to disrupt ordinary life with the ultimate aim of toppling the government and taking over.

TQM (war). Total Quality Management is an idea originating in US business and applied to the military in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. As is evident from proponents’ use of the term “management” instead of “command,” they emphasized the similarities between business and the military, arguing that, “servicing” the enemy, the latter should adopt the methods of the former.

*

You might think all this represents progressive and steadily improving ways of getting to grips with the extraordinary complexity of modern war. If so, consider that, even as the West came up with these and any number of similar ideas, it kept losing almost every war in which it has engaged from 1945 on. May that be because, as Hindenburg once observed, in war only the simple succeeds?

Under Fire (2)

 

Note: This article was first posted in July 2014. Almost word for word.

 

My wife and I live on our own in a townhouse a few miles west of Jerusalem, within range of the rockets from Gaza. Several times over the last few days the alarm was sounded. We react by leaving the living room, which has glass doors facing the garden. Should a rocket explode nearby, then flying shards will cut us to ribbons. So we move into the stairwell which, made of reinforced concrete, offers good protection. We are lucky to have it, for my wife has had her knee operated on and could not run if her life depended on it. I suppose something similar would apply to hundreds of thousands of others both in Israel and in Gaza. We wait until the sirens stop wailing—a hateful sound—and we have heard a few booms. Then we check, on the news, whether the booms originated in rockets being intercepted by Iron Dome or in such as have not been intercepted hitting the earth. A few telephone calls to or from our children, and everything returns to normal until the next time.

And so it goes. One gets up each morning, sees that the surroundings look much as usual, heaves a sigh of relief, and prepares for the coming day. Yet for several days now, much of Israel has been under fire. That is especially true of the southern part of the country. Over there ranges are short and incoming rockets smaller, harder to intercept, and much more numerous. There are several dozen wounded—most of them hurt not by incoming rockets but while in a hurry to find shelter. As of the evening of Tuesday, 19 July [2014], following eight days of fighting, just one Israeli, a civilian, has been killed by Hamas fire.

Several factors explain the low number of casualties. First, the rockets coming from Gaza are enormously inaccurate. They hit targets, if they do, almost at random. Second, the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system works better than anyone had expected.  The system has the inestimable advantage in that it can calculate the places where the rockets will land. Consequently it only goes into action against those—approximately one in five or six—that are clearly about to hit an inhabited area. The outcome is vast savings; in some cases, realizing that the incoming rockets are not going to hit anybody or anything, the authorities do not even bother to sound the alarm. Third, civil defense seems to be working well; people obey instructions and are, in any case, getting used to this kind of thing. Fourth, as always in war, one needs luck.

In short, generic medicines should meet the same standards generico viagra on line of quality, safety and efficacy as the original, this is often not the case. What are the side-effects? Its Side effects are generally mild and manageable. viagra samples Available in tablets, kamagra is one among the main reproductive disorders affecting satisfactory marital life. viagra 100mg You can buy them online or also visiting best price levitra the stores. In turn, the small number of Arab casualties and the limited amount of damage inflicted has enabled the government of Israel to keep the lid on its own actions in the face of extremist demands. It suggests a degree of control and precision never before attained or maintained in any war in history. But while the Israelis have been extremely effective in avoiding collateral deaths, the impact of their strikes against Hamas’ short-range rockets in particular is limited.

Israel’s lucky run will not last forever.  Sooner or later, a Hamas rocket that for one reason or another has not been intercepted is bound to hit a real target in Israel and cause real damage. Imagine a school or kindergarten being hit, resulting in numerous deaths. In that case public pressure on the government and the Israel Defense Forces “to do something” will mount until it becomes intolerable.

What can the IDF do? Not much, it would seem. It can give up some restraints and kill more—far more—people in Gaza in the hope of terrorizing Hamas into surrender. However, such a solution, if that is the proper term, will not necessarily yield results while certainly drawing the ire of much of the world. It can send in ground troops to tackle the kind of targets, such as tunnels, that cannot be reached from the air. However, doing so will almost certainly lead to just the kind of friendly casualties that the IDF, by striking from the air, has sought to avoid.

Whether a ground operation can kill or capture sufficient Hamas members to break the backbone of the organization is also doubtful. Even supposing it can do so, the outcome may well be the kind of political vacuum in which other, perhaps more extreme, organizations such as the Islamic Jihad will flourish. Either way, how long will such an operation last? And how are the forces ever going to withdraw, given the likelihood that, by doing so, they will only be preparing for the next round?

And so the most likely outcome is a struggle of attrition. It may last for weeks, perhaps more. Humanitarian efforts to help the population of Gaza, however well meant, may just prolong the agony. In such a struggle the stakes would hardly be symmetrical. On one hand there are the inhabitants of Gaza. Increasingly they have their lives turned upside down by the constant alarms, strikes, and people who are wounded or killed. On the other are those of Israel who, though their lives have also been affected, have so far remained remarkably calm and resilient under fire. Though some areas are badly affected, the Israeli economy has also been holding up well.

Perhaps because the number of Gazans killed and wounded is fairly small, international reaction, which is always hostile to Israel, has been relatively muted. One reason for this appears to be that no outsiders have what it takes to push either side towards a ceasefire. In a struggle of attrition it is the last ounce of willpower on both sides that will decide the issue. So far, it does not seem that the willpower in question has been exhausted on either side.

Dialogue No. XII. The Feminist Planet

Based on twenty years of thought, research and writing, this book provides answers to questions such as:

– In what ways are women privileged?

– What are the main similarities between men and women? What are the main differences?

– Who and what was Mary Wollstonecraft?

– Who understands women better—women or men?

– Why do so many men, including married men, visit prostitutes?

– What is the Kama Sutra all about?

– When will equality between men and women become real?
These herbal capsules wail not only increase the sex cialis on sale drive, but can restore energy levels, alleviate depression and help a man stay in better physical shape. The Acai Berry Increases Libido Interestingly enough, the acai berry is commonly referred to in Brazil as “Amazon Rainforest buying viagra . A few evaluations assert downtownsault.org canadian cialis no prescription 60 to 70 percent of all surgical techniques in the US are carried out on an outpatient grounds, and incomes from ambulatory care are considered to developing more quickly than those from inpatient care. These behaviors or personality traits are cipla cialis generika deeply rooted, and take time and significant effort to change.
– Is the future female?

– Is feminism destroying Western civilization?

– What is love?

– What will a possible reaction to feminism look like?

Based on twenty years’ study of these and similar questions, this book provides answers to them. Such as are succinct, always well thought-out, often provocative, and, from time to time, funny as well.

“Martin van Creveld has developed a bit of an international cult following with his stringent attack on what he calls ‘The Privileged Sex’. The ‘privileged sex’, he says, is female.”

Kenny, Belfast Telegraph.

Hooked? Get it today!

See the Conquering Hero!

This was not 1746, the year in which Handel’s oratorio was first performed. Instead it was 1950, the year when I, aged four and accompanied by my parents and my two younger brothers moved from the Netherlands to the State of Israel. That State itself had been established a mere two years earlier at the cost of 6,000 dead (out of a population of 650,000). No wonder references to heroism were everywhere. Including a Hebrew version of this song, which we children were made to sing first in kindergarten and later at school.

The origins of the heroism in question went back 2,281 (or rather 2,280, since there never was a year zero) years, down to 330 BCE when Alexander the Great occupied Palestine. After Alexander’s death, which took place in 323 BCE, the country came first under Egyptian Ptolemaic rule and then, from 201 BCE on, under that of the Seleucid dynasty in Syria. However, in 190 BCE the reigning Seleucid, King Antiochus III (“the Great”) was badly defeated by the Romans at the battle of Magnesia in Asia Minor. From that point on the decline of the Seleucids got under way.

Antiochus’ successor but one was his son, Antiochus IV, nicknamed Epiphanes (“The Shining”). Ascending the throne in 175 BCE, well aware that his multi-ethnic, multi-language, kingdom was on the point of falling apart, he tried to cement it by instituting what, two millennia later, came to be known as a “personality cult” focused on himself. Epiphanes’ other subjects being pagan, they seldom had any difficulty in adding another deity to their already extensive pantheons. Not so the monotheistic Jews to whom doing so was sacrilege, especially because practicing the Jewish religion was also prohibited.

*

The year was 167 BCE, marking the beginning of a revolt led by Mattathias the Hasmonean of Modi’in, a small provincial town some forty kilometers west-northwest of Jerusalem. Right from the beginning, it was simultaneously a civil war between Mattathias’ rural followers on one hand and the so-called Hellenizers, an upper class movement centering on Jerusalem, whose members were more inclined to accept the king’s demands, on the other. As is shown, among other things, by the fact that the opening blow was delivered by Mattathias when he killed a Jew who was about to make sacrifice to an idol.

From Jerusalem, Mattathias escaped to the Judean desert where he died a year later. Leadership of the revolt devolved on his oldest son, Judah Maccabeus (“the Hammer,”). At first he and his followers resorted to terrorism, specifically including the kind directed against fellow-Jews who refused to join the uprising. Next, switching to guerrilla warfare in what, today, is the West Bank, they were able to ambush and defeat a Seleucid expeditionary force that was coming from the north with the objective of relieving Jerusalem, still in the “Hellenizers’” hands. The victory not only raised the rebels’ morale but caused weapons and equipment to fall into Judah’s hands, further assisting the rebellion and enabling it to expand as more Jews threw in their lot with him. In the same year, 166 BCE, two other Seleucid forces also tried their luck by marching to Jerusalem from the west. Both were badly defeated, the first at Beth Choron and the second at Emmaus.

Epiphanes himself died in 164 BCE. His demise led to a whole series of civil wars in Syria, preventing any of his would-be successors from husbanding all of the kingdom’s military resources and crushing the revolt; a fact that in turn translated into Maccabeus’ liberation of Jerusalem, which took place in the same year. By now the rebels felt sufficiently strong to abandon guerrilla in favor of pitched battles which, at peak, featured armies numbering 20-50,000 men on each side. Doing so, they were able to defeat various Seleucid expeditionary forces at locations such as Beth Tzur (163 BCE) and Beth Zecharia (162 BCE). Over two millennia after, all these locations are still easily identifiable in the terrain and known under the same names.

What most of these battles had in common was the fact that the Seleucid army had been designed primarily to fight others of its own kind. Consisting of heavy infantry (the famous phalanx, complete with sarissae, or long pikes), cavalry and elephants—the tanks of the ancient world, imported from India at enormous expense—it was ill suited for fighting in the rugged, often extremely difficult, terrain of Samaria and Judea.

The last battle known in any detail was fought at Elassa, near today’s Palestinian city of Ramallah, in 160 BCE. If our sources, 1. Maccabean and the second-century CE Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, may be believed, this time the Seleucids, outnumbered the Jews by about ten to one. However, there was a catch. Like Verdun in 1915 and Moscow in 1941, Jerusalem was the kind of objective that had to be defended at any cost. Unwilling to leave it to its fate Judah, rather than dispersing his forces and reverting to guerrilla warfare, gave battle. A desperate attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of impending defeat by going straight for the Seleucid commander, Bacchides, was repulsed with loss and Maccabeus himself was killed. Later he was succeeded by his younger brothers, first Jonathan and then Simeon (another brother, Eleazar, had already fallen four years earlier when an elephant which he was stabbing from beneath collapsed and crushed him). Yet the struggle, reverting back to guerrilla warfare, went on. In the end it was decided as much by the prevalent disorder in the Seleucid capital Antioch, as well as Roman pressure brought to bear on successive members of the Seleucids, as by any other factor.

The Jewish-Hasmonean kingdom that resulted lasted just one century before it finally went down in 63 BCE. Its history, as narrated above all by the abovementioned Josephus, consisted very largely of a highly unedifying struggle for power between various scions of the royal family. No method, not even biting off one’s rival‘s ear (to disqualify him from serving as high priest), slaughtering his entire family, or crucifying him was considered too cruel to use. The end came in 63 BCE when two Jewish princes, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, appealed to the Roman commander Pompey, who was then in Damascus, to settle their differences. Following a great many political and military maneuvers, including a three-month siege of Jerusalem that cost the lives of 12,000 Jews (and very few Romans, Josephus says), Pompey finally decided in favor of Aristobulus. But not before stripping him of his royal title, greatly reducing the extent of the land under his control, and effectively ending the country’s career as an independent kingdom for two millennia to come.

*

The Jewish victory over their enemies gave rise to an endless number of stories, most of them known to us from the Talmud whose authors wrote them down some 300-400 years after the events to which they refer. One of the most popular, which every Israeli child of school-going age was made to learn, concerned a woman named Chanah (Ann) who had seven sons. Put on trial in front of the wicked king Antiochus, and encouraged by their mother, they refused to worship him as if he were a god. One by one they were executed right in front of her eyes. Another story told of an episode that supposedly took place after the Jews had recaptured Jerusalem and sought to re-light the Menorah (candelabrum). Like most retreating armies at all times and places, those of Antiochus had tried to disguise their weakness by committing acts of vandalism on whatever they left behind. This time the “victim” was the oil in question, which had been deliberately polluted so it could not serve the purpose for which it was kept. Entering the temple the victorious Jews found just one small jar, recognizable by the high priest’s seal, of unpolluted oil, hardly enough to last for one day. It was at this point that a miracle took place; the oil, instead of running out, lasted for eight days, which later became the time appointed by the Jews’ “wise men” to celebrate the recent victory.

More blood is circulated to the female genital area dry, kills libido and creates problem for arousal. order levitra you could check here Grownup-oriented stores with genital jewelry departments often have fitting rooms exactly where it is possible to uncover physical problems galore that can lead to issues when it comes to lovemaking purchase cheap viagra session. Gupta, who is having qualifications M.B.B.S., M.D., P.G.D.S. is a sex specialis online online deeprootsmag.orgt in Delhi that have an active substance called tadalafil. Medications like cheap cialis overnight continue reading over here, cialis has shown great results when it comes in expanding sexual yearning in ladies? cialis prescription? deeprootsmag.org lives up to expectations by hindering a protein that goes about as an inhibitor of blood stream. With its roots going back no further than the last century and a half BCE, Chanukah—meaning “dedication” and referring to the re-dedication of the temple by the victorious Hasmoneans–is the youngest Jewish festival. It is also the only one that does not go back to the Bible. Unlike the rest it was instituted by man, not God, and was therefore considered less important than any of the rest.

Originally Chanukah was a celebration of the people’s firm faith in, and adherence to, God, which were ultimately rewarded by divine deliverance. So it remained throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages, specifically the thirteenth century, were also the time when the most important Chanukah song, Maoz Tzur Yeshuati (My Refuge, My Salvation) was written and given a place in the standard Jewish prayer book. The song itself, consisting of six couplets, has little to say about war or human heroism in general. What it does is to provide a short history of the Jewish people and the miraculous way, each time it came under threat, God personally intervened in order to save it from its enemies.

It was during the centuries of the diaspora, too, that most of the remaining beliefs and customs associated with Chanukah were developed. One was the tradition by which it became Chag Haurim, the Feast of Lights (much like Christmas Chanuka is celebrated in midwinter, the season when any excuse to lighten up is welcome). It took the cozy form of a family reunion when parents and children lit the chanukiot, a sort of miniature Menorahs. It also involved giving children their pennies, playing with a sevivon, or dreidl, and consuming sufganiot, a kind of soft, sweet donuts.

There also exist some other, more esoteric and relatively obscure, customs that I shall spare you, my readers. To repeat, almost all of this is linked to worshipping and thanking God for the miracles He has wrought at various points in His people’s turbulent history. And not to anything like war, victory, militarism, or heroism.

*

Enter, around the turn of the twentieth century, Zionism and the Zionist Movement. In France as in the rest of Europe, this was the time when modern nationalism was nearing its peak; leading to the outbreak, first of the World War I and then of World War II. Whether for practical reasons—the need for self-defense against anti-Semitic attacks—or ideological ones, could anyone imagine a proper nationalist movement without its very own gallery of martial heroes?

Not surprisingly, the outcome was a more or less frenzied search for just such heroes. One took the form of so called “muscular Judaism.” Modeled after the “muscular Christianity” popular in England and the U.S at the time, it represented an attempt by Herzl’s close friend, Max Nordau, to convince Jews that they too needed to engage in body-building as so many goyim did. Another was the establishment of sport clubs with names such as Hakoach (the Force) and, you guessed it, Maccabee. Other Jewish heroes whom the Zionists dug up from history and set up as examples for youth to follow were King David, the fighters who died at Masada, and Bar Kochba (leader of an abortive revolt against Rome, 132-35 CE). However, many rabbis had no use for Bar Kochba who, as a result, only had a minor festival named after him. Given that suicide is prohibited by Jewish law, the same applied to Masada. David, while half-heartedly acknowledged as a hero (some rabbis claimed he was not a soldier at all, just a rabbi) was known primarily for his supposed authorship of Psalms. Absent any real competition, the importance of Chanuka and the traditions on which it rested increased.

As the Jewish community in Palestine came under Arab-Palestinian attack during the 1920s, the cult of heroism, the military and war gained in force. Celebrated by processions of torch-carrying youths—from my own youth during the 1950s and early 1960s, I can recall at least one song in praise of them, which we studied at school and had to learn by heart—here and there it took on a semi-pagan character. To this day in Israel, countless streets are named after the heroic Hasmonean and/or Maccabean commanders.

*

As one would expect, this kind of thing peaked during the years immediately following the 1967 Six Days’ War. In the eyes of Israelis as well as many foreigners, every Israeli became his own invincible hero. But only for a short time: come the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and this entire complex of attitudes and ideas was blown sky high. Later, as the years went on and outright military victory became almost as rare commodity in Israel as it did in other western countries, the glamor of war continued to wane. With it went the emphasis on Chanuka as a martial festival; instead of battle hymns, all that remained were compositions such as “a great miracle happened here” and “go round, and round, dreidel.”

Today it is mainly the national-religious Right, comprising about one in eight of Israel’s Jewish population, which still persists in seeing Chanuka as a celebration of heroism. For the rest it is principally an occasion to join the children in lighting candles—on each of the eight days the festival lasts, another one is added—as well as eating sufganiot. Much beloved by those with a sweet tooth, but detested and constantly warned against by those worried about gaining weight and diabetes.

Sic transit gloria martialis.

War-happy Female Politicians

By: Karsten Riise*

 

(PM Mette Frederiksen wearing pretend camouflage dress).

Denmark is an interesting research-object for understanding the politics of contemporary wars – and get behind the constructed facades of gender.

Denmark is a war-happy country, hyper-actively seeking constant political advantage from war. Liberal Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen LOVED Iraq+Afghanistan. These wars propelled Fogh Rasmussen up to become General (secretary) of NATO. Fogh Rasmussen’s jump to NATO was not just a “collateral side-bonus” for Fogh Rasmussen: It was his career-plan already as he sent his country’s soldiers off to Afghanistan and Iraq. When the war was started and Fogh Rasmussen was still Prime Minister, a Danish Colonel at a reception quipped dryly to me: This is how you become Secretary General to NATO. I was mildly chocked, if this was the cynical reality. As it turned out, it was. At that time, it was still not public knowledge what the Colonel had referred to, that Fogh Rasmussen went for the NATO top-post. But it later became known, that the first thing Fogh Rasmussen had done, as he entered his Prime Minister’s office, was to secretly order his closest PM officials to go immediately hunting for his next job, which he demanded should be an international top-position. Becoming leader of NATO was from the beginning one of Fog Rasmussen’s top career-priorities, and he would never have got such a personal welcome with Bush II in the White House and Camp David https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/images/20060609-2_a6g2295-515h.html and eventually succeeded in securing Bush II’s support for the NATO top-post, if Fogh Rasmussen had not sent soldiers and produced corpses for the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As demonstrated by professor Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen in his book The Good War? (“Den Gode Krig? Danmark i Afghanistan 2006-2010”), what gives value for the politicians of a small-country like Denmark is not whether a war like Afghanistan or Iraq is actually won or not. What prof. Vedby demonstrates is, that first of all it matters to the small-country’s politicians to “be part of it”. Band-wagoning. To be a camp follower. The small-country’s politicians choose to deliver blood to prove their allegiance to the stronger power (here, the USA) who is leading that war. Thus, a small-nation like Denmark can “win” a war, even if a war-of-choice is actually lost – provided that the politicians of the small-country through their tribute in loss of soldiers have increased their stockpile of goodwill with the leaders of the big power. Therefore, as Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen demonstrates, Denmark’s small-country politicians (both right-wing “Liberals” under Fogh Rasmussen and the left-wings with then-Parliament speaker Social Democrat Mogens Lykketoft), deliberately ordered their military to a “Goldilock” war-participation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Goldilock’s choice of of the medium-tempered bowl, Denmark’s politicians deliberately opt for a war-participation supporting the big-power, where combat is hot and creates dead bodies as tribute to the big-power, but not too hot, and hence not too many dead bodies. What Denmark’s politicians consider “hot but not too hot war” is, however, less subject to politician-humanitarian sensitivities in the welfare-state of Denmark. Compared to its country size, Denmark in Iraq and Afghanistan in total “produced” quite a lot of dead bodies in Iraq and Afghanistan for the USA: From 2002 up till today, Denmark’s military has in Iraq+Afghanistan booked a total loss of 52 dead and 233 wounded, out of a country of less than 6 million people http://forpers.dk/hr/Pages/Faldneogsaarede.aspx

In the beginning, Denmark’s Social Democrat Parliamentary Speaker Mogens Lykketoft had an extremely short hesitation, but very soon Social Democrat Mogens Lykketoft was a key figure for support of sending Denmark’s soldiers to the hot-but-not-too-hot bowl of the USA’s “wars of choice”. The “Goldilock” preference made Denmark opt for soldiering in the Helmand province of Afghanistan: Denmark’s politicians, incl. Fogh Rasmussen as well as Lykketoft, clearly expected soldiers to die in Helmand province, but only in limited numbers. When the porridge of the Afghanistan-war at a time got a bit too hot, Denmark actually chose to let others consume the porridge-bowl of the bloodier burden. This happened (not without bitterness from UK side), when 87 lesser equipped UK paratroopers in 2006 were asked to take-over from a larger unit of 120 better equipped Danish soldiers, when the “porridge” became too hot for Denmark’s “Goldilock” taste in Musa Qala (prof. Vedby, p.43). The smaller contingent from the UK then held on in Musa Qala for 2 months, double the time Denmark’s more than one third larger unit of better-equipped soldiers had been supposed to stay there.
But in the opinion of the next war-faring US President after Bush II, President Barack Obama, Denmark was “punching above its weight”. The USA continued to be happy with Denmark’s tribute. Mogens Lykketoft’s support for Denmark’s war-participation at that time was without doubt a good stockpile of goodwill for Lykketoft to get the supported he needed from a US President, when Lykketoft in 2013 ran for the office to become  President of the UN General Assembly, a post Lykketoft assumed in 2015-2016 https://www.un.org/pga/73/about/past-presidents/ .

These lessons by Fogh Rasmussen and Lykketoft in the immense personal political advantages which can be reaped from war have not only not been lost on Denmark’s women politicians. Denmark’s women politicians have now eagerly grabbed the political opportunities in sending men to fight and die in wars of choice. Women – also leftist women – perhaps even more eagerly than men jump the war wagon. Because women don’t have to do the dirty work themselves, they can send male soldiers to kill and be killed. 

As Professor Martin van Creveld has demonstrated (see for instance his book Pussycats), women soldiers are few and women cannot be forced or drafted to put their life on front line. Even those few women who volunteer to take on a uniform are nearly always widely protected from being sent to the dangerous front lines. As Martin van Creveld, who has also studied the actual roles of the much renowned women soldiers in the Israeli military, concludes, the dry reality of “woman soldiers” nearly everywhere in the world is that “Where there are women, there are no bullets – Where there are bullets, there are no women”.

Social Democrat female PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt LOVED to send (nearly all male) soldiers to wars (never mind how hopeless the wars were) in a bid to follow Fogh Rasmussen’s international top-career. Helle Thorning-Schmidt eventually just fell flat at her last election at home, and she became exiled as CEO of one of the many western state-sponsored do-good “NGO’s”, the “Save” the Children in the UK.

Today, both Denmark’s Social Democrat female PM Mette Frederiksen and her female Social Democrat war-minister Tine Bramsen, even more than their male political predecessors, LOVE war. https://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/politik/danskpolitik/mette-f.-opruster-sender-hundredvis-af-danskere-paa-mission/7779547 The list of new military engagements which Denmark’s PM Mette Frederiksen wants is no longer just a pair of countries, but a LONG list of all sorts of expensive and man-intensive missions. Syria. Africa. Afghanistan (still). The Baltic. The Arctic. a Danish Frigate to support US carrier fleets (as if the US Navy would be too weak without Denmark…). And of course PM Mette Frederiksen eagerly advocates US President Trump’s general wish for higher military spending without clearly defined needs. https://www.altinget.dk/artikel/live-regeringen-praesenterer-militaere-bidrag
Ignore the symptoms and run the risk of a stroke or heart levitra 10 mg attack within five years. If you have encountered ED and are as yet unaware of being troubled by any of the above mentioned symptoms then by visiting your doctor you can identify it and start off then you won t be able to see many advantages only brand viagra australia when the medicine is taken and you start up instantly then you might end up ordering for a wrong drug and hence can cause damages to your. Although tremendously good news in that more people are surviving beyond the diagnosis cialis canada generic than ever before, the society warns that many survivors face medical and psychological needs that are going unmet. These are viagra pfizer cialis appalachianmagazine.com to be consumed about 20 to 30 million motile sperm in each millilitre after it is thawed.
Recently, France suggested to intervene militarily in it’s former colony Syria (in the north), now the US is pulling back. Some would call that a brain-dead proposition. But guess WHO wanted to jump at such a splendid (even if disastrous) new war-opportunity? Denmark’s Social Democratic female PM Mette Frederiksen, of course. So it is not just about personal and national profiling in relations to the USA, but we see here a general instrumentalization of men for war-fighting for political profiling in just about any arising chance for war, also together with France, if the USA no longer wants.

The war-love of Denmark’s female Leftist politicians is now so hot, that they want to continue near 20 years of hopeless war-fighting in Afghanistan, even if their male soldiers and military experts warn against it, and even if the male right-wing President of the US should pull out of Afghanistan.https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/hvis-usa-ikke-er-i-afghanistan-giver-det-ikke-mening-vi-er-der-jo-mener-minister  

(read in English with Chrome and Google Translate)

These politics of Denmark as an example of a small war-happy US camp-follower are not only important for understanding the international politics of war – including the important value in war-legitimation and PR for a power like the USA to have a no.1 “do-good happy welfare-state” like Denmark fight along. These aspects are also important to understand the left-right and gender politics of war and violence.

War is violence. By definition.

We see here on display, that women are not more peaceful and anti-violent than men.
It should be researched, if women are even more violent than men, as long as women themselves can duck the consequences of violence by instrumentalizing men. In the USA, there was probably not a war, which female president-wannabe Hillary Clinton did not vote for in Congress. The Abu Ghraib torture of men https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse was all commanded by a woman, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. And as described here, in Denmark we see examples how left-wing females from Denmark’s former PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt, till today Denmark’s current PM Mette Frederiksen and her female war-minister Tine Bramsen are probably even more war-happy than their male political predecessors, and even more war-happy than some US right-wings, like President Trump, who actually seeks to pull out of war in Syria and Afghanistan.

Women are vital to promote, legitimize and even instigate war and violence.

Women can (still) better get away with promoting war. Women, also when seriously wrongdoing, manage to get viewed mildly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janis_Karpinski. Women were always in history important for cheering, when the male troops marched off. And women denied love to men, who resisted to fight whichever cause their woman (mother or wife) cajoled them to fight for. 

With #MeToo we see today more than perhaps ever, how women in media are constructing a fakenews gender-image of themselves as more humane, “caring”, more victimized, and above all more truthful than men. Women claiming their gender as the “better humans” make women excellent political constructors for selling violence for their own purposes. Because as the fake-constructed woman propaganda runs today: Women must be believed…. (or must they always?).

Karsten Riise is Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from University of Copenhagen. Former senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden with a responsibility of US Dollars 1 billion. At time of appointment, the youngest and the first non-German in that top-position within Mercedes-Benz’ worldwide sales organization.

When the Drones Come Marching In

Contrary to the common wisdom, drones are not new. Perhaps the first to build and use them were the Austrians in 1849; besieging Venice, which had revolted against Habsburg rule, they launched two hundred balloons that carried 33 pounds of incendiaries each. How effective they were, and what role they played in the city’s ultimate surrender, is disputed to the present day. Drones, in the form of remotely-piloted gliders and aircraft, were also employed by the German Luftwaffe during the last years of World War II. They scored their greatest success on 9 September 1943 when a contraption affectionately known as Fritz-X hit the brand-new Italian battleship, Roma, in the waters between Sardinia and Corsica and sank it. Others were used against installations such as bridges, with mixed results.

During the next few decades drones only played a marginal role in warfare. That, however, began to change in 1982 when the Israelis employed them with considerable success during their invasion of Lebanon. Some were used for conducting reconnaissance in front of the advancing armored divisions; others, to confuse and attack Syria’s anti-aircraft defenses until there were literally none left. Since then drones have multiplied and developed. As those who build and sell them never tire of pointing out, range, endurance, speed, maneuverability, payload, accuracy, and so on have all improved beyond recognition.

However, the most important developments in the field are seldom mentioned. They are, first, the fact that drones tend to be much smaller, cheaper—some come at less than $ 200—and more expendable than manned aircraft. And second that, being smaller, cheaper, and more expendable, they are capable of being used, and sometimes even produced, not just by states and their armed forces but by many other groups and organizations as well. Especially since the advent of GPS, almost anyone can build a drone in his garage. And indeed quite some people have been doing just that.

To gain a full perspective on the matter, consider the following. Starting at least as far back as the Peloponnesian War, the largest and most bloody wars were always waged by great powers against one another. In 1949, the year in which the Soviet Union became the second power to own nuclear weapons, this kind of warfare became obsolete. As additional countries acquired nuclear weapons during the following decades, they too were prevented from fighting each other in earnest. In time, it was this development that led to what many political scientists call The Long Peace.
Other devices of treatment can vary from role playing to changing anxious deeprootsmag.org on line viagra thoughts about speaking. Go Healthy Man can make the most enjoyable sex moment. viagra cipla deeprootsmag.org The most viagra 50 mg buying that popular products include Hot Goat’s Marijuana and Blue V Pills. You can look at them as bricks in the building block of body and these depends over direct source of energy for performing all the generic viagra rx discover over here functions properly.The medicine regulates enormous flow of energy by absorbing essential nutrients and vitamins.
But that is only one side of the coin. While nuclear weapons have been preventing great powers from seriously fighting each other, drones have been working in the opposite direction. As the American experience in fighting the Taliban, as well as the Israeli one in fighting organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah shows, when it comes to fighting guerrillas and terrorists drones are of limited use. Neither in Afghanistan, nor in Gaza, nor in Lebanon, did they enable their owners to break the other side’s fighting spirit and win the war. Perhaps, to the contrary: as recent events in the Gulf illustrate all too well, they made it possible for these and similar organizations to extend their reach, striking at targets dozens and perhaps even hundreds of miles away. The effect of drones, in other words, has been to help level the ground on which non-state and state belligerents fight each other. It is in this, above all, that their importance lies.

And the future? I am not saying that drones are invincible. With the possible exception of nuclear weapons, no weapon is. Drones can be brought down either by anti-aircraft defenses or by other drones. And they can also be fought by electronic methods, meaning that the command and control systems on which they depend can be interfered with. That, for example, is what the Iranians did back in 2011 when they captured an American Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel near the city of Kashmar.

But make no mistake. As far as anyone can see, nuclear weapons will continue to limit war among the most important powers. Meanwhile drones, becoming increasingly sophisticated, will help make it easier for non-state organizations to confront the powers in question, thus presenting the world with a new challenge that is not just military but political as well. And one that states and their militaries better take seriously before it is too late.

Saber Rattling in the Middle East

One of the few things I like about Trump is that, two and a half years into his presidency, he has not (yet) begun any new wars. In this he is very much unlike some of his predecessors. Including Bill Clinton who, for reasons only he and his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright understood, waged war on Serbia. Including George Bush Jr. who waged two wars—one on Afghanistan and one on Iraq, of which the first was stupid and the second both stupid and gratuitous. And including Barack Obama who helped turn Libya into a bloody mess from which it has yet to recover.

As the New Yorker put it, the U.S has a long history of provoking, instigating, or launching wars based on dubious, flimsy, or even manufactured threats to which it was allegedly subjected by other countries. Just look at what happened in 1846, when President James Polk justified the Mexican-American War by claiming that Mexico had invaded U.S. territory; at that time, in fact, the border had not yet been drawn and no one knew where it was running.

When their turn came Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt all used similar methods. As, indeed, Lyndon Johnson may have done when he came up with the Bay of Tonkin incidents and used them to initiate his campaign against North Vietnam. Now Trump, for reasons known only to himself, is rattling his saber against Iran. Including both renewed economic sanctions and an arms buildup in the Middle East.

As the mysterious incidents in the Emirati port of al-Fujairah show, in all this there is plenty of potential for escalation, deliberate or not. How it will end no one knows. What seems clear, though, are two basic facts. One is that first Pakistan and then North Korea were able to avoid the sanctions imposed on them from various quarters and acquired the bomb nevertheless. This, as well as the nuclear history of some other members of the nuclear club, suggests that, had Iran really made building up its arsenal a top priority as the U.S and Israel claim, it would have succeeded long ago.
Here you can see the benefits offered by sex to our body, but if you have a date bring them back to your house for an enjoyable night in. viagra sales in india The medical buy viagra soft term for the removal of the federal government’s right to assess or approve a religion and its status. From the ages of past some of the sales cialis Ayurvedic medicine producing companies are trying to invent the remedy of ED. Though there are many instances appalachianmagazine.com order levitra in which NASCAR stopped practice and qualifying to help evacuate the grandstands, it rarely happens during races.
The other is that the existence of nuclear weapons in the hands of those countries, both of which have quite bellicose traditions, has put an end to large-scale warfare between them and their neighbors. Such being the case, there is every reason to think that the same weapons, by reassuring the Mullahs that some American president will not make them share Colonel Gadhafi’s fate, will do the same in the Middle East.

And where do America’s European allies come in? Here I can only agree with The Donald. No point in worrying what Europe can and cannot, may or may not, do. Too stingy and too disunited to build up any real military strength, basically all it can do is watch from the sidelines while the vital decisions are made by others.

As it has done so often in the past.