The Ballad Of The Pink Beret

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

We knew the decline had been ongoing for a while.  This is simply the Army adopting the St. Paul school method.  The student didn’t fail, there is no fail, there is only quit. If the student didn’t quit, then the student must have passed.  Good job, here’s your participation award.

The author deplores lowered standards but misses the point – none of the standards matter.  What matters is: can you do the job?  For that, we must define the job.  If it’s going hand-to-hand against elite enemy soldiers, then yes, these girls are going to die.  But is that the job of the Green Berets anymore?

Maybe the job of modern Green Berets is to parade around wearing the uniform to convince congresswomen who are fixated on feminism that they should siphon money away from the Neanderthal Marines so the Army can buy more tanks and helicopters for men who do the actual fighting to use in combat.  Okay, yes, that means Green Berets are now little more than props for the budget presentation, but so what? Advertisers dress up pretty girls to sell products all the time. Congresswomen are the Army’s “customers;” give the customers what they want.

If you’re really interested in debating whether physical standards matter, find some enterprising businessman to organize a reality show.  People who graduated from Green Beret school during the past year will compete against equally ranked recent graduates of other programs.  The best female Green Beret might have placed fifth in her class, for example.  She will parachute into a forest, land-navigate two miles carrying a ruck and rifle to find the target location, then “kill” sentries and destroy an enemy supply dump before escaping a mile away to build a shelter for the night.  Judges will time the run, effectiveness of the attack (grenade, shooting, etc), dump rain on the shelter and score the results.

Next up, the fifth best Force Recon Marine.  On deck, the fifth-best graduate of the equivalent course of the military in the Philippines.  In the hole, the fifth best graduate from Israel.  People love those silly ninja obstacle courses on television.  Let’s see how modern female Green Berets stack up against potential allies and enemies, doing things we would expect actual combat troops to do in the field.

If American girls suck as badly as this author seems to think they will, I bet the show would be a gigantic hit in China and Russia. The only remaining question is: swimsuit competition, or not?

To play devil’s advocate for a moment here – the “Green Berets” (‘ mission is as much about “unconventional warfare” – in other words, going into enemy territory and creating guerrilla groups – as it is about killing sentries and blowing things up (although there’s plenty of that as well).  Part of the job is being able to go deep into enemy territory and use language and cultural skills to create the relationships needed with the indigenous guerrillas.    And women are just fine at language an culture, so that when a team parachutes in to deal with an indigenous culture that has high respect for women, like in Afghanistan or Yemen or…


Let me start over.

If we ever have to fight a war against Cambridge, San Francisco or Portland, female Soecial Forces operators could be useful.

Caste Forth

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Former professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point writes about the failure of leadership at the academy.

But enough hammering on the Army.  Let’s talk about the Navy, with two collisions this year, what’s happening to its leadership?

Makes one wonder: do we need a professional officer corps?  Would senior non-coms be enough to teach new recruits the basics, leaving strategy and tactics to a small group of experts?  Do we need military officers worrying about diversity and career opportunities for women – aren’t there enough people in academia, the media and politics doing that already?

Joe Doakes

It’s not an academic question.

Collateral Messaging

Joe Doakes from Como  Park emails:

If a conventional war breaks out, there won’t be enough targets in North Korea to go around.  The admirals know that but they sent a third carrier group anyway; therefore, the targets we are threatening are not in North Korea.

This move must be intended to send a signal to some other nearby nation.  Let’s think – who needs a reminder that war in Korea could boil over with disastrous consequences?  Who needs an incentive to step on a bug?

Joe Doakes

Most everyone?

Something Seems To Be Wrong With Our Bloody Destroyers

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Here’s a retired Navy guy who thinks the reason Navy ships keep hitting civilian vessels and running aground is . . . .

The Navy suggests they might have been hacked, or maybe the other ship was, probably by the Russians, since that’s the universal fool-proof excuse for manifest incompetence nowadays.

If I were at the helm and looked out the window to see a tanker that’s 100 feet wide and 50 feet tall bearing down on me, I’d be thinking about taking evasive action.  We need the captain on the bridge for that, the guy at the wheel isn’t smart enough to make that decision?  But I’ll bet every sailor on board completed sexual harassment prevention training, promptly and on time.

Joe Doakes

Perhaps, but God help the 19 year old Seaman Second Class who turns the wheel without an order from the Officer of the Deck.  Who, on the other hand, should have exactly that reaction.

The Real Concern

Charlie Martin echoes my real concern about Kim’s new nuke arsenal – that they’re aiming to launch and electromagnetic pulse attack on the US.

Or at least, planning on appearing to be able to.  In some ways, a big-enough EMP strike might cause more damage to the US than nuking one city, especially given the likely poor accuracy of Kim’s missiles.

And it’s an imposing deterrent:

The possibilities of a NEMP attack have been talked about for a long time, as John Moore’s articles show. It’s possible that the real risk is finally becoming clear to our politicians and our legacy press. The Boston Herald recently had an extended story on the danger of a North Korean NEMP attack, and Tucker Carlson recently showed interest in the problem.

Of course, there are others who don’t think it’s much of a risk, In that Boston Herald story, they quote Joshua Pollack, the editor of the Nonproliferation Review, as saying:

[A]n EMP attack doesn’t warrant more alarm than any other type of nuclear offensive because its efficacy is still uncertain — and it would have consequences for whichever nation launched it.

“It’s just an untested approach to trying to use a weapon, and just invites retaliation without doing a lot of damage,” Pollack said. “I’m much more concerned with blasting fire and radiation. Those will kill lots of people and destroy lots of stuff, and can do it very reliably.”

The problem here is that it’s based on a false assumption: that NEMP has not been tested. It’s never been applied as a weapon, but it has certainly been tested — and I don’t think my little fiction above is a worst-case scenario. So, how much damage from an inefficient NEMP attack should we plan on absorbing?

The mainstream media were wrong during the 70s and 80s, and they’re wrong today.

By The Roots

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

President Trump gave a speech in which he explained why he’s changed his mind on pulling out of Afghanistan: it would create a power vacuum and enable the Taliban to sweep in.  Instead, we’re going to stay and kill terrorists until conditions on the ground allow us to leave.  But we’re not going to engage in nation-building.

Great, he’s going to pivot to Afghanistan and focus like a laser on killing terrorists.  Where have I heard that before?

I don’t object to killing terrorists but why aren’t we nation-building?  Because nation-building was proposed as the cure for the root cause of terrorism but it turns out the root cause of terrorists is not poverty or lack of democratic institutions.  Establishing a puppet regime with purple-finger elections and midnight basketball won’t stem the flow of terrorists so we’re not going to waste time and money doing it.

Fine.  If that’s not the root cause, what is the root cause of Islamic terrorism?

I suspect the root cause of Islamic terrorists is radical Islam, even if everybody in Washington is terrified to say it.  Why not fight them?  Because there are different sects with different agendas and different funding, making them hard to find and kill, and the press would crucify you for trying.

But we know one of those sects is Wahhabism.  Which is funded by Saudi Arabia.  Which is run by the Royal Family of the House of Saud who the US protects from domestic unrest with US troops even as the Saudis work to get OPEC to undermine American domestic oil production.

As it sits now, our War on Terror policy is to kill the individual puppets but support the puppet masters even as they attack our economy.  That’s insane.

Forget the terrorists.  Let them squat in their mountains and kill each other.  Close our border so terrorists can’t come here, then go after the root cause.  Go after the money.

Issue drilling and pumping permits to produce oil on leased federal lands which will flood the world market with American oil and depress Saudi incomes.

Declare Saudi Arabia to be a financier of terrorism and seize all Saudi money in American banks.

Pull US troops out of Saudi Arabia to force them to spend their remaining money defending themselves from their own people. If we have any AK’s laying around that we captured in Libya, hand them out to the locals as we’re leaving Saudi Arabia.  Regime change on the DIY plan.

We’ve been fighting a War on Terror since 9-11 by going after street-level terrorists.  It’s not working.  Try something else.

Joe Doakes

Nope. Never Seen This Before.

SCENE:  Avery LIBRELLE is running down the street, clearly hysterical.  BERG sees Avery. 

BERG:  Avery!  What’s the matter?  Do you need help?

LIBRELLE:   There is  no help for this!  Trump is going to lead us into a nuclear war with North Korea!  We’re all doomed!

BERG:  How on earth do you figure?

LIBRELLE:   All that toxic masculinity!  That always leads to disaster!

BERG:  Er – have you read this yet?

LIBRELLE:  (Reads article).  Ah.  Another big win for Obama’s legacyi of diplomacy.

BERG:  That makes no sense… (But LIBRELLE has already skipped away)


Don’t Eschew The Reaper

David French on the wrong response to Manchester…:

Let me share with you some deeply flawed words from the editorial board of the New York Times. I do this not because the Times is alone in its sentiment but because the paragraph below is perfectly representative of the wrong approach to fighting terror. Reflecting on the Manchester bombing, the editors say this: Meanwhile, as hard as it is amid the shock and the mourning, it is important to recognize this attack for what it is: an attempt to shake Britain — and, by extension, the rest of Europe and the West — to its core, and to provoke a thirst for vengeance and a desire for absolute safety so intense, it will sweep away the most cherished democratic values and the inclusiveness of diverse societies.

Read more at:

…and the right one. 

So, Britain, ignore the New York Times. Give in to your “thirst for vengeance.” In a manner that is consistent with the laws of war and the great tradition of British arms, make an example of ISIS. Destroy terrorist safe havens with prompt, decisive force, pursue terrorists wherever they flee, and send a clear message. Terrorists have sown the wind. They will reap the whirlwind. Avenge your fallen.

Read more at:

Read the whole thing.  


Donald Trump called ISIS “Evil Losers” in the wake of the Arianna Grande bombing last night.

Some on the left called the appelation the illiterate interjection of a trained chimp.

Not so much, says Scott Adams, who has over the past two years proven to be the only pundit in American who actually gets Trump.  It’s part of Trump being, as Adams calls him, the Master Persuader.

He’s “branded” ISIS.  And – says Adams – it’s genius:

If you call them monsters, they like it. If you call them ISIS or ISIL they put it on a flag and wave it around. If you call them non-Muslim, it just rolls off their backs because they have Korans and stuff. Almost any other “brand” you can imagine is either inert or beneficial to Loser recruitment.

Loser is different. No one joins the Loser movement. Try at home, with your family or friends, to concoct a more effective brand poisoning than Loser. You probably can’t. Remember, your brand has to fit with future confirmation evidence. The Losers on the battlefield will continue to be losing, so the brand is engineered to get stickier over time. Your alternative idea for a brand solution has to have that quality of future confirmation too. Good luck finding a better persuasion brand.

This is not accidental. President Trump does (laugh if you will) have the best words, at least for this sort of thing. He’s proven it over and over. Just ask Jeb, Ted, and HIllary.

The whole thing is worth a read.

The Problem With Being Goliath

All the usual caveats apply:  it’s Breitbart.  Yadda yadda.

But this piece here jogged my thinking about something that’s been on my mind lately.

Kim Jong Un’s hold on power pretty much depends on keeping his nation convinced that he can defeat the United States in an open conflict.

Now the Norks have been plugging gamely away trying to build nukes, and the ICBMs to launch them with.

Do they ever have any hope of matching the US’s immense (if ageing) nuclear arsenal?  No, not a realistic one.

For that matter, could they even beat the Republic of Korea in a conventional war, much less the US?  No – the South’s army is huge, well-equipped, and highly motivated.

And yet Kim blusters away.  And naturally some of that is going to be the inevitable blustering of tyrants to their enslaved people.

But what if he believes he can not only bring down the US, but do it fairly decisively…

…and on the relative cheap?

Turns out there’s a solid chance he could do exactly that.  While Hiroshima-sized nuclear device can devastate an area a few miles across if it blows up 2,000 feet in the air, and spread radioactive dust hundreds of miles downwind if it blows up at ground level, if it explodes 50-60 miles in the air it will cause no direct damage on the ground – but it’ll fry every unprotected electronic circuit within hundreds of miles.

During the Cold War, some experts calculated that a half dozen nukes detonated in the trophosphere could fry nearly every non-hardenedelectronic circuit in the United States and most of Canada and Mexico.

Every non-hardened computer – and the switches, routers and other electronic hardware that the Internet runs on.  Every cell phone – and the switches and routers and modulators and demodulators at every cell tower and service center.  Every electonic ignition system and engine control computer in every vehicle that had one – which is pretty much every one built after about the mid-eighties.  Every bit of avionics – radar, GPS, transponders, altimeters, and, in the new “glass cockpits”, the flight instruments and the processors that link them to the controls in every airplane in the sky and on the ground, and in the air traffic control centers that route the air traffic.  The computers that monitor where all the money is, and who has it, and who’s getting it.   The processors that make many of our healthcare miracles possible.

And the electronic infrastructure that controls the “supply chain” that grows our food, harvests is, processes it and ships it to wherever you live, assuming you yourself are not a farmer.

Anyway – while the Norks’ nuke tests are being played as comedy fodder in the American media…:

“The April 29 missile launch looks suspiciously like practice for an EMP attack,” [Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and= chief of staff of the Congressional EMP Commission] wrote. “The missile was fired on a lofted trajectory, to maximize, not range, but climbing to high-altitude as quickly as possible, where it was successfully fused and detonated — testing everything but an actual nuclear warhead.”

Western “experts” quoted by the likes of NPR scoff that the Norks’ missile technology would have a hard time reliably hitting a city-size target.

But that’s the thing with EMP – you don’t have to hit even a city-sized target.  You have to hit the trophshere, somewhere above a region of the country – and if you manage to do it half a dozen times – say, over upstate New York, near DC, over southern Georgia, Iowa, Bakersfield and Oklahoma City – you wreck the vast majority of America’s electronic infrastructure.  Banks?  The power grid?  The poiwer grid?  The internet – outside the bounds of the original ARPANet, at least?  All cell networks and land-line networks?  All major media?  A good chunk of the military, for that matter?  The control of the entire food supply chain?   Every non-carbureted vehicle in the US?   All shut down.

There are alarmist claims that an EMP attack could kill 100 million Americans.  I doubt those claims; humans are a lot more resilient than that.  But it’d be a huge hit – it’d send most of this country back a century.

Anyway – such are the things that keep me up nights.

Perhaps a more rational – or at least constrained – assessment here.

I Wanna See Some History…

Trump bombed s Syrian military installation.  It’s been in all the papers.

I’m not going to comment about that, per se – what can I possibly add?

No, I’m not commenting about the pros and cons and rights and wrongs of yesterday’s action in Syria, or of whatever might be around the corner…

… but listening to the “sky is falling” reactions of some of my social media network – especially those below the age of about 45 or so – all I can think is “holy cow, good thing none of you were alive during the Cold War.”  They’d all have died of heart attacks or institutionalized themselves from stress in mere weeks.
It seems that something like this, or worse, was happening every month throughout my childhood – which was spent twenty miles from a Minuteman III missile silo.
Just a sample, off the top of my head, from a couple of my high school and college years:
  • Soviets invaded Afghanistan; US supplied equipment to the Afghan resistance.
  • Polish labor unions started agitating against their Soviet oppressors; Soviets were ready to invade when the Polish Army staged a ‘coup’ and brutally shut down the protests; the US/UK, the Pope and the AFL-CIO smuggled money and other aid to the Polish trade unions to continue resisting the Communists.
  • China and Vietnam fought a war
  • India (then a Soviet ally) and Pakistan (then a US ally) fought a war.
  • India developed a nuke.
  • North Korea – a Soviet proxy – was in a constant state of war with South Korea, a US ally. While Kim Jong Il didn’t have the technology his son has, he also launched *many* raids into the South; Nork commando raids, with frequently-bloody resolutions, were a semi-regular thing.
  • Soviet sponsored terrorists – Baader-Meinhof, Brigati Rossi and many others – killed people in the streets in Europe.
  • Faced with Iraq (a Soviet proxy) building a nuclear reactor that could lead to the Arab Nuke, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor that was being built by the French.
  • Israel (a US proxy) invaded Lebanon to push back terrorists sponsored by Iran, who’d been bombarding the Kibbutzim in the north with Soviet-made rockets; they ran into Syrian (Soviet proxy) forces (in brand-new Soviet tanks and aircraft), and destroyed them in head to head battle, leading to the brink of yet another Mid-east war.
  • Cuba (Soviet Proxy) sent troops to aid various sub-saharan dictators (Soviet proxies); US sent aid to the opposition.
  • Hezb’allah (a Syrian/Iranian proxy) kidnapped American diplomats, businesspeople and military advisors in Lebanon, killing some of them.
  • Soviet planes and submarines constantly probed US and NATO defenses; US and NATO planes and submarines constantly returned the favor, leading to many tense moments)
  • Various communist (Sovet proxy) groups launched terror, guerilla and electoral campaigns in South and Central America; the US supported their opposition. Borderline civil war erupted in many countries, supported by both sides.
  • Several times during the ’70s and ’80s, errors on both sides led the nuclear forces on *both* sides to go to advanced stages of alert – basically tightening the finger on the hair-trigger. This, at a time when US missile crews were on fifteen minute alert, and at every US bomber base (including Grand Forks and MInot), there were always a couple of B-52s loaded with nukes, their crews in a ready room yards away, warmed up and ready to take off on five minutes’ notice
  • The US, responding to the Soviet deployment of “SS20” intermediate range missiles to eastern Europe, sent missiles of our own to Western Europe.
  • The Soviets spent millions of dollars of hard-earned foreign currency to support a “peace” movement – against US nukes in Europe.
  • During talks over these nukes in Rejkjavik, Iceland, President Reagan called Premiere Gorbachev’s bluff, and walked out. The world’s landed punditry solemnly intoned it was the most dangerous event in human history. (In fact, Reagan called Gorbachev’s bluff, Gorbachev blinked. It was the beginning of the end of the USSR – but nobody knew it then).
  • And the entire time, half a million US troops and a ready-for-war NATO (in 1980, the militaries of most NATO countries were 4-6 times larger than they are today) faced something like a million Soviet and “Warsaw Pact” soldiers across a completely militarized border that split Germany into two countries.
Again – not commenting on yesterday’s events themselves. Just the reactions I’m seeing.

By Christmas?

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The military is the smallest its been since WW II which makes sense as the Founders feared a standing army would become a tool to oppress the citizens and there is no threat to the United States that would justify maintaining one.

 So why is our military engaged in so many wars around the globe?  Aside from Afghanistan, we also have boots on the ground in the Middle East and in Africa.  What national security interest are they defending?  Why not pull them out, bring them home, stand them down?

 Joe Doakes

Dunno.  Ask the guy with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Neerja Bhanot

It was thirty years ago today that Neerja Bhanot won India’s highest honor for bravery in peacetime, the Ashoka Chakra Award when her jetliner, Pan Am Flight 73 from Mumbai to the US, was hijacked by terrorists from Abu Nidal, who were specifically targeting Americans.

Wikipedia takes up the story:

After 17 hours, the hijackers opened fire and set off explosives. Neerja Bhanot opened one of the doors. Although she could have been the first to jump out of the aircraft and flee to safety when she opened the door, she decided not to and instead started helping the other passengers to escape. Neerja was shot while shielding three unaccompanied American children from a hail of bullets of the hijackers. Out of a total of 41 American passengers, two were killed during the hijacking. A child on board, then aged seven, is now a captain for a major airline and has stated that Neerja Bhanot has been his inspiration and he owes every day of his life to her. 

I’m including the story partly due to its historical value…

…and partly to counter the notion that the cultural left continues to push – the idea that the individual is helpless in the face of adversity, to say nothing of aggression, without “the village” – the suffocating fog of government there to protect and validate them.  This thesis is trashed on a nearly-daily basis.  Faced with imponderable evil, against the most daunting odds, ordinary people do the most extraordinary things.  To attempt to has always been considered one of the greatest virtues of mankind.

And I’m here, in part, to keep reminding you of that.

So that, more importantly, you can remind others of that.


It’s gotta be frustrating to be a terrorist, trying to actually get PR for attacks in America.

It’s gotta feel almost like a scene from Monty Python and the Life of Brian – they keep launching attacks in the US (via proxies, for the most part) and the government keeps blaming it on…others!

  • Nidal Hassan’s attack on Fort Hood?  Workplace violence!
  • The attack on the recruiters in Little Rock?  Street crime!
  • San Bernardino?  Why, that was workplace violence too, silly peasants!
  • Omar Matteen?  Whose ISIS sympathies were so clear that the Administration felt the need to clumsily redact them from public releases on the subject?   Apparnetly his victims were killed by self-animating Republican guns.

It’s gotten to the point that Al Quaeda (remember them?) is telling its lone wolves to try to focus on WASPS, to try to prevent the American social-justice grievance industry from co-opting their attacks for their own purposes:

In the June 12 attack in Orlando, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and injured 53 inside a gay nightclub. Although Mateen, who was later killed by police, told hostage negotiators he pledged allegiance to ISIS, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has characterized the attack as a hate crime against gays.

“I cannot tell you definitively that we will ever narrow it down to one motivation,” Lynch told reporters last week. “People often act out of more than one motivation.

“This was clearly an act of terror and an act of hate,” she continued. “We will look at all motivations and hope to come to a conclusion there.”

Although Al Qaeda does not take credit for Mateen’s attack in the online article, it urges more “lone wolves” to take up arms. Jihadists should target “areas where the Anglo-Saxon community is generally concentrated,” it states. “This class of the American community is the majority and it is the one that is in the American leadership.”

On the one hand, it makes good PR sense; strip out as many hooks for the left’s exploiting the narrative as possible.

On the other?  They’ve tried it once – and it didn’t end well for them.

Rumor Of Anything But War Nosirreebob

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

A general in Iran claims Iran has been preparing for all-out war on the US and its allies for years.

No doubt the Obama administration is pondering this message for subtle clues.  What could it mean?  Is it a plea for carbon credits?  Living-wage jobs?  What do Iranians really want?

Joe Doakes

It’s something about launching nukes if any state implements Voter ID, I think.

Happy Easter. You’re Dead.

Read this piece, from MPR, about the bombings in Lahore, Pakistan.

Horrific?  Yep.

What’s missing?

The fairly pivotal fact that the the Pakistani Taliban targeted the park because it was a major center for Pakistani Christians celebrating Easter.

To do so would interfere with the narrative that we’re not involved in a battle to the death with a millennarian, eliminationist death cult (and no, I’m not referring to every Muslim, or even a majority).

Show me a charity that seeks to train, and ideally arm, Christians around the world – especially in Nigeria, ISIS territory, and Pakistan – to resist genocide, and I will hold a fund-raiser.

UPDATE:  Let’s put a hotfoot on that charity providing arms and training to Christians in harm’s way.  And, if we can swing it, tanks and jets and napalm.


(Hat tip to Kel in the comment section)

In The Changing Fashion

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Read the Old Testament.  War was constant in ancient times, tribe against tribe.

Read Medieval history.  War was constant in Medieval times, family against family.

The Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1658, nationalized war.  From that point on, “war” could only be conducted by nations.  All other violent conflict was “crime.”

We’re still operating under that intellectual framework.  President Obama doesn’t consider terrorism to be “war” because it’s not being waged by a distinct nation.  It’s just “crime.”  That’s why he sent the FBI to investigate the Benghazi consulate bombing – to look for clues so they could prosecute the criminals who blew it up and murdered our ambassador.

At some point, we need to shed our antique notion.  Military historian William Lind theorizes war has moved into a new generation characterized by smaller groups loosely affiliated in furtherance of a long-term goal.

That’s what Belgium looks like to me.

That’s what war looks like today.

Joe doakes

The good news:  we’ll never see another World War 2 again.

The bad news:  we’ll never see another World War 2 again.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

There has been recent discussion about requiring women to register for the draft.  Failure to register carries threat of prosecution, but nobody has been prosecuted in decades.  Despite lack of enforcement, compliance is 99% in Idaho but only 34% in Washington, DC.  We must address the factors causing voluntary non-compliance.  If threat of prosecution carries no weight, how can we give young people a meaningful incentive to obey the law?

Joe Doakes

It’s time to end selective service registration.  It will never be used, the military doesn’t want it (ever), and it’s major problem isn’t that we don’t draft women; the problem is that the draft puts the onus of defending the nation (especially in the enlisted ranks) entirely on those who don’t have the means to avoid the lottery.

“Selective” service is an abomination to a free society.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

North Korea claims to have detonated a nuclear weapon.  There is much consternation: a rogue state with an H-bomb would be dangerous.

The report is false.  It’s simply not possible.  President Clinton solved the problem of North Korea nuclear weapons decades ago.

And North Korea has nothing to do with Iran.  To even hint that President Obama is repeating Clinton’s mistake – that he’s not only enabling but actually funding a rogue state’s acquisition of a weapon of mass destruction – is totally raciss and therefore an unacceptable topic of discussion.

Joe Doakes

To the governing class, it’s not the facts that matter; merely that the process was followed.

What A Terrorist Wants

SCENE:  December 8, 1941, in the well of the House of Representatives – in an alternate universe.    President Barack Delano Obama is addressing a joint emergency session of Congress.

OBAMA:  Yesterday, December Seventh, 1941, is a day which will live in infamy.

Now, let me be clear:  this attack did not represent the Real Japan.  Japan is an ancient, honorable culture, dating back over 2,000 years; Shinto is a religion of peace, famous for its pastoral scenes and transcendental poetry.

And this attack does not represent the real Japanese people; a people who invented sushi, and baseball, and the number zero, named after their fighter plane.

We know the attackers were the junior varsity; who even knew the Japanese had aircraft carriers?

The lesson of yesterday?  We must not give in to fear, or bigotry, in framing our response to this attack.  We must not let fear drive us to launching an air raid on Tokyo, or a two-pronged offensive through the Solomon Islands, or an island-jumping campaign through the Central Pacific, because that is exactly what the attackers want.  If they force us to attack them, we are playing their game, their way.

We must respond to the parts we control – to the National Rifle Association, which has, through the intransigence of Congressional Republicans,  made it easier for criminals like the attackers to buy bombs than books in Tokyo.

I urge Congress also to accelerate passage of the Affordable Defense Act.

Thank you, and let’s not waste this crisis.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Larry Correia writes the Monster Hunter series, which are pretty good SF.  He’s also a Gun Guy, truly one of us.  His column about Paris:

I like this line, talking about the Obama administration failures in the Middle East:

“. . . the western world was literally cheering Putin getting involved. How badly do you have to f**k up that your allies are happy the Russians moved in instead?”

Joe Doakes

Correia’s a sharp guy.

And the answer to the rhetorical question is “Badly.  Very badly.”