pinions of buddy don: cuple articulls that bears republicayshun

i writ thisn back on nov 14 2003. twuz titled 'pinions of buddy don: art of war.' thay wuz lanks in it, witch ye kin find them in the owe riginal

thays this book called the art of war thats thousands of years old by a riter name of sun tzu. in it he eggzamines how ye win wars n thangs to avoid to keep frum bankruptin yer folks n overstretchin yer troops n cumin home in disgrace n even losin. in it he gives lots of ways ye kin avoid disaster or on tuther hand, ways ye kin win even if the odds is stacked agin ye. tiz a innerestin read n i advise ye to follow that lank n see whut ye thank. taint long.

thays a jurnlist at the new york times name of milt bearden that read sun tzus book n then wrote a articull bout how the enemy in iraq has eethur read it or studied the way the insurgents in afghanistan beat the russians with it on a counta how thar usin them same tackticks. his articull is called "Iraqi Insurgents Take a Page From the Afghan 'Freedom Fighters'" n tiz also wurth a read. heres a few of the main points:

1. sun tzu sed ye gut to attack the enemies strategy furst thang n thats whut the iraqis dun: "So it was probably no accident that as American forces approached Baghdad, expecting tough street fighting, the bulk of the Iraqi forces melted away. The American troops, forced to shift strategy on the run, have been bedeviled by the consequences of those early chaotic days ever since."
2. next ye go after the alliances, lack the un or the red cross or the poles or the italians or the jordanians or iraqi folks that heps our side out by bein po-leece or mayors or iraqi council members.
3. thurd thang sun tzu recommends is to attack the army of the enemy, speshly ifn ye kin doot without gittin attacked back, lack usin mortars to attack hotels or stingers anti-aircraft launchers to attack helicopters n such n usin homemade bombs to take out one or two of the enemy here n thar.
4. thang bout this is ye git to attack yer enemy n make him reack in ways that makes thang wurse fer his cause on a counta tiz hard to tell who the enemy is so in lookin fer em, yer almos bound to make sum innocent folk suffer n then they turns agin ye. milt bearden points out how the afghani 'freedom fighters' (witch that wuz osama bin ladens bunch that ronald raygun hepped start up) used this tacktick: "For every mujahedeen killed or hauled off in raids by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, a revenge group of perhaps a half-dozen members of his family took up arms. Sadly, this same rule probably applies in Iraq."
5. finely, sun tzu sed ye gut to know yer enemy n know yerself. we cant ritely say we know eethur one verr well. we sartinly dint know whuther they had em them weppons of mass destruckshun (even ifn we did no bettern to use the wurds 'imminent' n 'threat' in the same sentence). we aint sartin whuter the enemy is bitter enders or al queda terrsts or saddams army or jes plane folk who hate to see thar cuntry overrun by forn troops. we dont speak thar lingo or unnerstan thar tradishuns. we dont even seem to member verr well whut the west taught em bout how to make a enemy suffer even when it has cuntrol of the place, lack lawrence of arabia dun, witch everbidy ought read his book "the seven pillars of wisdom."

thays sum bleeves saddam hussein wuz gittin reddy to fite us thisaway frum the verr beginnin. frum how he lost the war in 1991, he had dun figgered thay wuznt no way to beat us hed on. so sum thanks them iraqis stored up thar weppons n planned whar they wood hide n let us in sos they could start usin them principulls agin us. bes articull ive seen on that topick wuz in newsweek, writ by Vernon Loeb and Thomas E. Ricks, witch they even called it "Is this Saddam's counterattack?"

but wait, thars more, lack they say in them ads, on a counta whuts a'goin on in pakistan, whar ye mite member thay gut em a guy name of Pervez Musharraf as presdint, witch ye mite member hes one of them folks that bush dint know the name of whenever he wuz given that unfair pop quiz by the reporter when he wuz runnin his camp pain fer presdint (i mean, why should the presdint have to know bout such folk?). ye mite member how he sed twuz sumbidy who had dun brought stabilty to the subcontinet. not by usin democracy, witch thats the latest reasun fer why were a'doin whut were a'doin, but on violence on a counta how Pervez Musharraf tuck cuntrol of the cuntry by usin a miltary coup. so whut could he but up to now?

thays a articull that purty much tries to splain whuts a'goin on over thar in the daily times, a new voice for pakistan, witch the articull is called "Pakistan has legions of Bin Laden followers." dont read thisn ifn ye scare easy on a counta it tells how thangs is fallen apart over thar. the articull starts off with a quote frum our own cato institute: "'In Pakistan, there are legions of bin Ladin followers, plenty of links between government officials and terrorists and nuclear weapons that could fall into the hands of anti-American terrorists. This is not speculation,' according to Leon Hadar, a research fellow at the right-wing think tank the Cato Institute." these cato institute folks thanks pakistan is whar the real ackshun in terrism is, not iraq. tiz sum scary stuff.

aint no doubt that we gut the edge in the science of war. questchun is whuther the science of war kin beat the art of war.

thisn heres tuthern that seems to apply even today. i writ thisn back on dec 1 2003. twuz titled 'pinions of buddy don: ye cant win harts n minds with bullets.' agin, to git all the lanks, check the owe riginal.

i wish i could find the quotayshun whar sumbidy wuz arguin that ye kin establish democracy with a gun. i thank twuz in the washington post, but i cant find it nohow. the riter pointed out how thay had dun been a few democracies made thataway. a cuple he menchuned wuz the american revolution n the french revolution.

but thatn dont wurk fer whuts a'goin on in iraq, witch thats whut the riter wuz trine to say, that ye could make a democracy usin a gun. problem with his eggzamples is that the holders of the guns wuz the folks who wuz fitin fer thar own democracy. twuz the insurgents in the fite, not the big powers, be they the british or the french monarchy. tiz us in iraq.

the history of the worl shows ye that it takes a folk makin thar own cuntry to git ye a democracy out of it. n that means that the folks has to git it into thar own harts n minds that democracy is whut they wont. ifn they dont wont it, then ye cant enforce it on a counta ye wood be voted out furst time they tuck a vote.

so whuther we lack it or not, whut we half to do ifn we wont democracy overn iraq (or innywhar) is to cunvints folks to wont it fer thar ownself. ye gut to win thar harts n minds. taint easy.

take whut's a'goin on over in iraq right now. furst, we had to close one of thar media outlets, al arabiya, on a counta how twuz broadcastin saddam hussein. in its place we dun put up a stayshun or our own name of al iraqiya. thang is, folks in iraq druther here al arabiya than al iraqiya.

problem fer us is were in a fite we dont hardly know how to win. these is just my pinions, so ye kin ignore em all:

1. folks livin in iraq aint used to democracy n dont hardly wont it
2. ifn ye could give democracy out to folks in iraq, its hard to bleeve they wood vote the way we wont em to
3. folks livin in the arab worl larnt how to fite asymetrickull battles frum lawrence of arabia n they been a'usin it ever since (have ye dun red t. e. lawrences seven pillars of wisdom? do ye wonta unnerstand whut's a'gone on over thar? then ye gut to read it! the movie aint near as good as the book fer this kinda thang)
4. folks livin the arab worl have been wontin n havin theocracy in sted of democracy most of thar histries.
5. thays folks over here that seems to wonta make us a theocracy in sted of a democracy
6. ifn folks over here, whar we gut us a form of republican democracy, kin wonta a theocracy, it shouldnt cum as a sprize that folks wonta keep the theocracies they dun gut or could git back
7. granted, iraq wuz a secular muslim nayshun, n thats whut we wont it to be, but thays minny folk over thar that never wonted it to be secular
8. member that the main thang saddam n osama couldnt agree on whuz whuther to have theocracy or a secular gummint
9. mos everthang we kin do with our power is a'gone hep tuther side make its points agin us

corse, ifn we cant win the harts n minds over here, whut kin we speck frum our efforts over thar? we wuz set on gittin osama, dead or alive. whutever becum of him? we wuz a'gone smoke him out frum whutever hole he wuz in. he wuz publick enemy number 1 with a bullet. now hes a forgotten man livin in pakistan or afghanistan, sumwhars whar we aint gut a nuff troops to ketch him.

did sumbidy use weppons of mass distrackshun on us?

i luv my cuntry the way i luv my son. ifn he wuz to tell me he wuz gittin reddy to do sumthin stoopid, lack try smokin crack, i wood criticize him. i wood try to stop him. i wood have a march on his home if i thought it wood wurk. fack is, i wood do everthang i could to git him to stop. i wood not be anti-son fer doin so. ifn he persisted in takin the rong path, i couldnt pertend its rite jes to show him my support. i wood half to tell him the truth.

same applies to my cuntry. twuz a miss take to git distrackted frum gittin osama. period. ifn we dont stick with doin whut we say were a'gone do, then aint nobidy gonna take us serious.

n ifn ye aint tuck serious, ye dont win harts n minds. fack is, ye kin only win harts with luv n minds with better idees. bullets dont fit neethur deescriptshun.