Squatter is not a 4 letter word

It was probably a mistake, but I called my step-son’s friend  a squatter. My step-son’s response was to say, “a squatter is someone who can’t pay,” and noted that Sam can pay.

But I didn’t accuse Sam of being a renter. I based the label of “squatter” on Stephen’s history of having to help Sam move under derrest in the last few places Sam, and my step-son when he doesn’t live with us, lived.

It should be interesting to hear what Sam says. Labels shouldn’t be important, but, more likely than less, they are.

America’s Defense Amnesia

“blowing themselves up.”

By “blowing themselves up I mean, an insurgency is a sine wave. It has a magnitude of a magnum 9 earthquake when the structure of  its wave has a 6/2  slope.

That’s much like blowing oneself up when the insurgency reaches the bottom of the downward slope and there is only 1 event of the greatest magnitude.

On the other hand, civil war is a square wave. It has close and far, and deep and shollow, but the magnitude is only like a magnum 4 earthquake.

That’s not so bad. Given time and a high birth rate (where 72 virgins really come in handy) and you will hardly be able to tell that the explosion went off.

Not so with an insurgency. When it reaches its point of singularity (the bottom of its downward slope)… BANG!

That’s it.

I don’t think the US, because it is a Republic, has ever had an insurgency. China had one in Chairman Mao, and 60 million people died. The closest the US came to having an insurgency was when Nixon was POTUS.

But then the insurgency kinda fizzled out, when they started calling themselves Baby Boomers and the leaders Republicans  :)

via zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » America’s Defense Amnesia.

The Economics of the Indo-Pacific Pivot

As I have said before, all war is about economic considerations and fought by people with few economic consideration.

Much has been said, in our pivot towards the Asian Pacific, about the people with few economic considerations.

We have heard about the saber-rattling of China in the disputed South China Sea and elsewhere.  This saber-rattling doesn’t really seem to be much about economics. Perhaps now is the time we need to talk about the economic considerations in the Pivot.

Basically, economically we are going to do for those nations under our Indo-Pacific pivot what we did for the Middle East. We are going to use our military to uphold the relevancy of the US dollar.

Perhaps the quip used by one of the characters in the movie “Tinker, Tailor,  Soldier,  Spy” can be used to clarify what I mean by “doing” to the Indo-Pacific what we did for the Middle East.

In the movie there was a change of leadership in the “Circus”. The Circus is where  the odd performers of the British secret service get together and put on a show for everyone else in the Service to see. The new Ringleader, to show his knowledge of how things are in the world made the statement that, “you can rent an Arab, but never buy one.”

I don’t know if that statement is true or not, but by literally throwing billions of dollars into the environment of Iraq, after our invasion,  we “rented” thousands of Arabs. (I know the dollars in my wallet are mainly there for me to rent. They never stay in my wallet long enough to actually own.)

In other words, economics is not just about interest (which collecting interest is not popular in most areas of the Middle East) but a strong economy also depends a great deal on whose hard currency runs the show.

While there were many reason made for going to war in Iraq, strategically it was in the US’s interest to make sure “petrol dollars” also meant the US dollar.

As many experts have said, the Iraq war wasn’t about the US grabbing Iraq’s oil. The US doesn’t get its oil from the Middle East. The oil coming out of the Middle East is mostly going to China and other developing nations.

But what is important,economically for the US is that whoever buys oil in the Middle East uses US dollars. The US economy depends on the fact that they do.

With Turkey threatening to join the EU, France heavily into buying oil from Saddam, and rumors of Russia and China making gold the currency for oil, the relevancy of the US dollar was disappearing. I suggest that is no longer true.

While all strategy is flawed, and there is an on-going civil war throughout the Middle East, in the most part the US currency is still “the” currency of the world.

My guess is that the US dollar is the most relevant it has ever been in the Middle East, but the same cannot be said in the Asian Pacific.


A 1.6 billion infusion of US dollars and an occupation of US Marines may counteract that train of thought.

The Strategic Advantage in Fighting on Only One Front

“It is a concern to me, it’s a concern to any veteran, anybody in the military,” Hagel said during his first appearance on Capitol Hill since being confirmed as defense secretary.

I think it is significant that this is the only news I found coming out of Fox News, but maybe I just didn’t look hard enough. I guess Fox couldn’t find anything more important coming out of the House Armed Service’s committee than this one issue, who deserves a medal more, those with or without “skin” in battle.

Taking medals away from someone that actually might have earned them is not something I imagine Fox wants to be behind of. Fox better hope Hagel doesn’t come to the conclusion that someone fighting in a Nintendo environment needs to be reward with this medal, as someone in the Service that Hagel talks about in this quote did. If they do deserve it, then Fox should ask why.

As it is, anyone getting the “Nintendo Medal” with Hagel as the top administrator will deserve it. Fox should figure out why he/she would deserve such a medal, before they get on the wrong side of  the strategy behind the giving out of this medal.

But then Fox is owned by someone that wasn’t, if I understand correctly, born or raised  as a North America. Apparently their owner wants America to follow the Rightwing Conservative principles of another nation, in another hemisphere.

The nation he was or still is a citizen of has gone from calling China a totalitarian nation to aggressor nation, and now an assertive nation. It kinda makes me wonder what the Fox’s owner thinks of his own nation, as their Conservative principles change.

It doesn’t appear that China has changed all that much, at least in structure. The Right is a structure, not a culture, and China doesn’t appear to be changing its structure anytime soon.

It also appears that China’s culture is going to need more time for change. China is a very complex culture in which change doesn’t culturally seem to happen, unless there is a revolution. China’s structure is geared towards stopping revolutions.

But then, Fox’s owner is not a North American. He is Australia by culture, so what would he know about strategy anyway?

I think North American people’s advantage has always been that they think more strategic. After reading “Empire of the Summer Moon, I think strategy has always been the North’s advantage, as it presents itself to the world historically.

To that end, I never really understood the significance of Lincoln’s strategy, of using people from both sides of the aisle to fill some of the executive positions within his administration. That was until I watched this hearing on CSPAN yesterday.

The strategy that Lincoln used has the advantage of using an executive, such as Hagle, from the opposition  positioned as a handle to a lever that pushes against the force of the opposition and the POTUS forces as well. Kinda of a twofer.

In the House yesterday, Hagel not only tore into the Republican Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, who wanted Hagle to take something like a 100 billion more dollars, but Hagle also tore into the smug Democrat who thought Hagel was a force pushing Democratic issues as well. The Republicans and Democrats both got their asses kicked.

In politics, the enemy isn’t in front of the POTUS, but positions themselves behind the leader. The people infront represent an image of change, as the image of Hagel in front of the POTUS.

Lincoln’s strategy handles those behind the POTUS (today they are called Democrats) as well as those in front of the POTUS (today they are called Republicans). Hagel with Dempsey at his side, tore up the House yesterday and made mincemeat out of all who were in front of him.

I would like to see him do the same in the Senate.

Really? The Republicans want to come out on the side of spending more money at the expense of our civilian society, while at the same time the Democrats want to come out on the side that says spending cut aren’t hurting our military, as our civil society takes a pass on having to make any sacrifices?

All Hagel and Dempsey are asking for is time to reposition our forces. I mean everyone realizes that Iran is in Asia, right?

When falling back to a defencive position, as our resources go bye-bye, there is some advantage to be had in having to defend only one front, and that front should be “pivoting” across the Pacific.

The Pacific is the position our debt is centered in. This center can be called a pivot point. While Boehner has come out in favor of paying our debt, I am not sure the Red States agree with him.

I mean, if they really want to secede from the US, aren’t they independent of the debt? If the Red States what to take advantage of our nukes and not pay back our debt, who’s to stop them, Obama?

Oh, right! If they did secede it wouldn’t be their decision, but that ain’t going to happen now, is it.

via Hagel Decision on ‘Nintendo Medal’ Expected Next Week – Fox News.

Enduring Values

I believe those were the words the guy in charge of Obama’s legacy used to describe the US military’s pivot towards, or what is now called, the “Indo-Pacific”.

The words used to describe the pivot was changed from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. The words were changed to highlight the most important partner in the area included in the pivot.

I believe the guy in charged used “enduring values” (if that was the correct quote) in his conversation about the  “pivot”,  because a “pivot” with “enduring values” in its narrative has no change in momentum nor values.

The US military representing the values of the U.S.A isn’t turning towards the Pacific, because it never really left. All the US military needs to know is whose with them in this pivot.

In other words, in order for the US to pivot towards the Pacific, we don’t have to fight the momentum of changing values to get there. Our values are in the pivot, and they are highlighted in India.

So I guess the guy was basically saying “stuff it”, we are pivoting towards an area of the globe in which our values are the same as India’s and everyone else within the area of the Indo-Pacific Pivot.

For a nation such as the US, who are supposed to be sons of Abraham,  this is quite a big deal. For an area that owns most of our debt, it is a reassurance of the repaying of that debt.

I think this repaying of debt is going to surprize a bunch of people in the US, who thought nukes countered debt (rock over paper).

North Korea first.


Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance

In 2010, a South Korean Island known as Yeonpyeong was struck by dozens of North Korean artillery shells. Two South Korean soldiers were killed and more than a dozen persons were injured. The atrocity raised international brows waiting for South Korea to retaliate.

Tolerance between each other, maybe, but I believe the North and South Korea have been gaming each other for years. So the tolerance is between players, but not in the situation each player finds themselves in. Each player has different relationship to the common environment.

China has always had a love for North Korea’s ability to control their people. But after 60 years of war, North Korea hasn’t changed much, but China has. It is this change in China that makes the “proof”  in provocations no longer valid.

China is moving the center of gravity of the Military Industrial Governmental Complex (MIGC), once centered in the US, to Asia. What a MIGC centered in Asia needs most is war.

In a Complex and to get rid of entropy that is inherited in the creation of the weapons of war, war is needed to simplify the environment the old Complex is moving towards and the environment the new Complex is moving away from.

So what China needs first and foremost is a war that will once and for all tranfer the center of gravity to Asia.

But China doesn’t need a war that involves the center gravity of old (USA and its allies).

A war that involves the US or its allies will not help in the new alignment. The alignment needs to be completed with precision and accuracy. War that involves the US or its allies will prove very sloppy.

In fact, because the outcome of war is an unknown,  what China needs now is a war that will not include the US, nor South Korea. What China needs now is a war with North Korea. I believe China is building up towards that goal.

In contrast, what North Korea needs now is help from South Korea to keep China from taking over the Korean peninsula, and creating another Hong Kong in the process.

South Korea is very nationalist and becoming another Hong Kong is something they will not take without a fight.

What North Korea needs now is the skills of a master gamer, and unite the peninsula under the Korean brand. It is yet to be seen if the Kim dynasty will be able to provide those skills.

If I am correct and things are heating up like they have never before, then it will be hard to see what is happening, unless you are a master gamer.

This is something the US military has not shown any skills in of late, and probably should just pass on.

via Kerry Patton: Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance.

The U.S. is running out of fancy planes to send to Korea

It would appear that if U.S. muscle-flexing is to continue, military planners will have to come up with something more creative than dusting off the latest hangar trophies.

If you’re like me, and has watched the Iraq and Afghanistan through the portal called the internet, then the advances in the military hasn’t been in its fancy technology, but by the leadership that is represented by the military.

The leadership represents a total top-down to bottom-up advancement in the mobilization of forces. To me it is highlighted in what took place in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11. If you want symbols to represent the future, then this is it. Benghazi represents the look in the future of the US military.

And the biggest news there was that the US Marines came under fire by Afghan forces, as there were some in the vicinity of the fight, and created another front in the WOT. No wait! that is exactly what didn’t happen.

I am sure any other administration would have quickly brought to bare a Marine expeditionary force on those who took part in the killings, or would have been crucified for not taking action against those people who killed Americans in Libya  not this administration.

As I have said before, Afghanistan represent the center of a religious movement, which is why it is a strategic position for our troops to be in. We have learned how to fight Afghans, and the best way to do that is to let them go back to their country, and bring the 15th century with them.

I mean it doesn’t look like, or the opposition party would have taken advantage of it, that any of the Americans who died could have been saved by an expeditionary force.

They all seemed to have ventured out of the network that was protecting them, and apparently the network really wanted these guys alive. In fact some of those in the networked died also, which is kind of a big deal.

So what has Benghazi to do with Korea, you may ask?  Well the world has now seen the military might that the US military is able to bring to a fight over the skies of Korea, so now where is the leadership?

Well maybe here:

via The U.S. is running out of fancy planes to send to Korea | FP Passport.

Congress: Wanna get away? – First Read

Reid’s job is to help move President Obama’s agenda through the upper chamber, but he must also protect his five-seat Senate majority, and gun-rights groups are threatening to go after vulnerable Senate Democrats who back the president’s calls for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”

So why call for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines? Why not just give the assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines to the militias,  and let the militias worry about the collection of weapons? Wasn’t forming militias a big part of the 2nd Amendment to begin with? If the majority of the people think we need to arm ourselves with automatic weapons, then let’s arm ourselves with automatic weapons.

If not, then let us keep supporting our first responders. Not really sure there are the funds to do both.

via Congress: Wanna get away? – First Read.

Unimaginable Statements and Signs of Surrender

Brett Friedman said it best. “Can you imagine a USMC 4-Star ever saying “we’ll be unprepared’? Never”

Oh how we long for the days of the NeoCons, when what our generals said didn’t matter.

Perhaps Friedman should ask the General what we will be prepared for, because the General has obviously given that some great thought. That is what generals do; they think.

But more than just thinking, a general adds strategy to the thinking process and his/her strategy has two ends to think about and prepare for: the beginning of the end (which the General says we are not prepared) and the end of the end, which I am betting he is prepared for.

So either seek the advice of the general that tells you that “we’ll be unprepared”, or become a Republican :)

But on the other hand, if we somehow bite-the-bullet and Decide to Act according to how we are Oriented (we are a consumer economy) and pay for the debt that we have accrued in the world, perhaps we should take advantage of the environment that we have positioned ourselves in, and opt out.

We have positioned ourselves as a nation of great command, but little control. This is what the General is trying to tell you.

We are unable to fight a war against  a nation that is in control of what we want (cool electronic gadgets and games), while at the same time maintaining the demand for those products.

So we are unprepared for war.

At the same time, the advantage we have in the world is our ability  to move our culture in new directions, think  what Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, Rap, ect. has to offer.

This ability to create fast transits (OODA) is pissing many people off, and what the General is also  telling you is: we can’t afford to pay for this war against the generation of diversity while at the same time fighting a war against the generation of conformity.

This ability, to generate diversity in our cultures, upsets many people of many orientations.

The greatest Orientation that has been upset has been among our own culture–the Conservatives.

The Conservatives want to enforce conformity, to our past, because it is that Orientation that has been the most successful, in the past.

Unfortunately, the past is no more. We are a nation of command and what control the suppliers of our resources had over us is gone, in a mushroom cloud.

This ability of our culture to diversify does not set well for the party of our culture that demands control, i.e., Conservatives.

The Conservatives want to enforce the conformity of our past on the culture of those generations that are living in the future. These generations are called Liberals.

Liberals want to generate diversity that increase demands, unlike the culture of the Conservatives who want to decrease diversity, to conform to demand.

The problem being: the potential for both diversity and conformity is equal, and so the two structures, the left and Right are at war.

To generate diversity while at the same time enforce conformity will take some kind of strategy over the process, but I believe these two worlds can live together, it is doable.

It’s a game, and you all are invited.

via Information Dissemination: Unimaginable Statements and Signs of Surrender.

A Pause for Negotiations in the Israeli-Hamas Conflict

If no one seems to want to serve as mediator, it is because there is such little room for negotiation. It is not ideology but strategy that locks each side into place.

And what is that strategy?

One of Hamas’ main goals in this current round of fighting is to retain enough Fajr-5 rockets to allow it to threaten the Israeli heartland, the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor. If they succeed, Hamas will have gained a significant lever in its relations with the Israelis.

So at least one half of the strategy that locks each side into place is Hamas’s want of a lever to use against Israel. And to obtain that lever Hamas has used Gaza to created another “Cuban missile crises” that threatens war between Israel and Hamas?

Hamas has used its economy, much like Russia did in Cuba, to plant missiles that can reach deep into Israeli territory, and now believes Israel will let these missiles stay, because war will be too costly for Israel to accomplish its strategy of obtaining a missile-free zone around its nation state.

On the bright side, finally something is happening in the Middle East that Americans can understand, it’s a Cuban Missile Crisis. Gaza is Cuba and Hamas (although a local body) is Cuba’s “enabler” Russia.

The problem (and there are many) for anyone comparing that which is happening in Gaza today and what happened in Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis is understanding what economy Hamas is working from. The strategy is basically the same, but the economies that the strategy is based on are different.

The Cuban missile crisis was resolved when the economy (and everything else) of Russia was threatened with extinction and Israel has done all it can to extinguish Hamas’s economy time and time again. And while the missiles being installed in Gaza don’t represent as great a monetary value as those Russia installed in Cuba, Hamas still needs some kind of an economy to be able to purchase these missiles.

It seems, as Israel destroys Hamas’s economy, Hamas was able to use an outside economy to install its missiles in Gaza. Given Israel’s control over Gaza’s economy, Hamas was either able to build these missile installation using Israeli money or an outside economy actually built those missile installations.

So Israel basically has three choices. It can build another wall around Israel using the Iron Dome and isolate Israel even more, continue a destroy/build scenario with Hamas and let the conditions evolve, or it can go after the economy that installed the missiles in Gaza even if that means its own economy.

The problem with the third option is that it looks more and more like WWIII, Chief Rabbi Sacks: “I think it’s Got to Do with Iran”.

In other words, after a civil war, which started in Iraq, picked up by the Arab Spring, and continues into Syria; the economies of those fighting the civil war merge, like it did in North America.

Israel’s attack on Gaza could be an attack on this new economy that is emerging out of the fighting, and I am sure the world is very interested in this new economy.

As Iran has been helping the fighters on both sides of the civil war, Iran is probably just as much involved (or evolved) in this new civil war economy as anyone, including Egypt.

via A Pause for Negotiations in the Israeli-Hamas Conflict | Stratfor.