Western Heritage Australia

   Hearts and Minds 

The winning of "hearts and minds" is central to the American campaign strategy against the Taliban in Afghanistan, however of late the American forces have perpetrated or been engulfed by a series of public relationship disasters of the first magnitude. The first was the U.S air strike near the border of Pakistan which wiped out 24 Pakistani service men.

" Strategic error" said the U.S high command; but if taking out Osama Bin Laden in the Pakistan garrison town of Abbotabad, under the very noses of Pakistani security (ISI) had partially alienated Islamabad then the 24 deaths finished the job. The Pakistani US alliance is now on very shaky grounds.

The second "error" was the leaked 'bootleg' video shot of American troops urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban casualties. This was a "leak" in more ways than one and the screams of Islamic fury reached the highest minaret.

The third "coup de grace" was the 'inadvertent' burning of large batch of Korans by American 'personnel' within the walled safety of the American 'bunker zone' in Kabul. In this instance the screams reverberated around the world and even resulted in shootings in America itself.

So the 64 dollar question; can America, with this kind of track record, defeat a highly disciplined, fanatical and ruthless enemy and also, is there some fatal flaw in the contemporary American "psyche" some "blind spot" which makes it unfit to run an empire ?

But who said "empire" ? ........... well, I did; for make no mistake, the American world network of military and naval bases, air strategy, deployment of military hardware and troops; cyber intelligence and interlocking alliances with friendly powers (example Saudi Arabia, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, nearly all EU nations and naturally Israel) IS an empire just as truly as was the British Empire under Queen Victoria; but we live in A.D 2012 so the game plan has changed, the USA does not actually own and control large slabs of Afro Asian territory and appoint governors with plumed helmets. It does not need to. But rest assured, there is a viable American empire and strategically speaking WE are part of it; this is not a bad thing; if the other leading contender China should ever replace America atop the greasy barber's pole then our prospects as an independent Western style democracy would be none too bright so don't regret American hegemony. At all times in history ONE power has held the whip handle; the only question is which one shall it be. And the peaceniks who envisage the amity of holding hands and chanting mantras are not merely intellectually and morally contemptible but will be the first causality should our Western World balance of power collapse.

So back to America and it's fatal flaw; does it have one ? and if so why and when did it start ?

As we all should know, Americans _can_ win wars; cite only: World Wars I and II, the Spanish American "stoush" (1898), and of course the American war of Independence against Britain (circa 1776). But since the Viet Nam debacle (1965-1975) there has been "nay luck aboot the hoose" (Scottish saying).

Perhaps America has lost it's soul; it was founded and developed by people who were religious idealists, they believed in hard work, simple living, strict morality and that every man could pull himself up by his own bootstraps; "from a log cabin to the White House" was not impossible. Also there were educated men and women who cherished our literary heritage extending as far back as ancient Athens. I am currently reading a travel book written by a Californian adventurer circa 1870 - it is choc-a-bloc full of classical allusions which most modern readers would not understand.

The modern American, is a flabby, fast food fed, hedonistic high tech addict; he a telaholic 'couch potato' and his only interface with conflict is via war games on the Plasma screen.

Of course not all modern yanks are like this - there are still great numbers of them both in and out of the armed services who could very readily fight bravely and win wars if they were properly led and motivated. Certainly this is true in the middle west and "Dixie" perhaps not so much so in New York and California.

So wake up America, before you join "Nineveh and Tyre".

Stop Press: This piece was written just prior to the 4th nail in America's Afghan coffin;  I refer to the beserk rampage bt the U.S "soldier" who gunned down 16 villagers in their homes; mostly children:

We are told that the poor fellow was under financial pressure, so perhaps all future recruits need a clearance from their bank manager but seriously, we kave to ask, has modern America produced a desensitised type of urban nerd who is unfit to service in any army ?

(No opinions or facts expressed in this contribution have any necessary connection to the opinions of the Fellowship of the Round Table nor of it's Executive)

For whom the bell tolls

Some professions, by their very name and nature, are deemed noble. Belonging to one of these makes you a person of distinction. Such a one is that of "philosopher" - philosophers command attention and respect. Two Australian 'philosophers' have now presented the case in a "journal of medical ethics" that "after birth abortion" so called is morally justifiable, as long as it is painless "because the baby is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceputalise". They assert that a foetus and a new born infant are "equivalent in their lack of a sense of their own life and aspiration".

Thus it consistently follows that the right to life of any person, at any age, is only valid if they can muster "a sense of their own life and aspiration".

On this criteria a quite huge segment of the adult population, particularly older people in retirement villages and in nursing homes, would 'fall short' and be deemed 'expendable'.

These people, anywhere from 7 to 10% of the Australian population are now being kept alive and in reasonable health by a medical profession which believes that their lives are worth protecting.

The social machinery needed to execute the 'bioethics' of these 'philosophers' does not yet exist. But if and when it should arise then non productive older people or retarded people who are weak in that vital "sense of their own life and aspiration" will have very poor survival prospects indeed.

Euthanasia of this "non voluntarily" genre was a well known feature of the late lamented Nazi regime circa 1933 to 1945, as was "Eugenics", the breeding of human beings in the manner of farm stock.

Under such a 'quality control' regime, future tense, how exactly would a prospective citizen young or old be 'deemed' worthy of preservation ?

Obviously their "licence to go on living" could only be granted by a small committee of bioethicists doctors or "philosophers" who DO feel that they are they themselves gifted with this "sense of life and aspiration".

Would you wish to live in a community where you require a "licence to go on living", renewable perhaps when you take out your new driving licence - how could you possibly have one without the other ?

I admit that I have drawn a 'long bow' in taking the 'quantum leap' from infanticide to Nazi style Euthanasia of the unfit. But if we create committees who will play God with deficient infants then why stop at any specific age ?

These two "paragon" philosophers of medical ethics have perhaps done all of us a favour. The anti-life movement has now finally come out of the closet - no one is safe. The war to protect the unborn and the elderly sufferers from dementia is the war to protect all of us.

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls"

(No opinions or facts expressed in this contribution have any necessary connection to the opinions of the Fellowship of the Round Table nor of it's Executive)