Blog Internationale!
La Vida Foco
Reading James Wolcott, a writer I like, I found a link to a blog called Global Guerrillas, run by a guy named John Robb.
He was linked by Wolcott because of some comments Robb had made on the recent passing of the unlamented Zarqawi.
Sample, from Wolcott: “If we put Zarqawi within a historical context, he was able to do what Che hoped to do with a foco insurgency... In essence, he proved that within a modern context (open source warfare and systems disruption), it is possible to seed the collapse of a state."
According to the Global Guerrila website/blog: “A foco insurgency is one that forgoes the methodical political indoctrination of the population in favor of small bands of fast moving guerrillas that gain victories against state forces.”
Here’s some of Mr. Robb’s bio: “John is a highly regarded analyst and speaker, with a focus on the intersection of terrorism, infrastructure, and markets. In this capacity, he has briefed Silicon Valley's technology elite and many of the top hedge fund managers in the world. Audience reactions have been spectacular.’
He recently had an editorial in the New York Times. In it, he wrote, “…[O]ut-innovating the insurgency will most likely prove unsuccessful. The insurgency uses an open-source community approach (similar to the decentralized development process now prevalent in the software industry) to warfare that is extremely quick and innovative.”
I have no doubt that Mr. Robb is of value regarding strategic/tactical/entrepreneurial approaches to the, um, War on Terror. But still – don’t you get the sinking feeling that Mr. Robb not only has possible solutions to the, um, War on Terror, but has also found a Niche Market as a marketing/terrorist consultant?
He creeps me out. I shun him. Foco him.
United Nations?
This really has me buffaloed.
U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown (a fuzzy thinking one-worlder, ipso facto), gave a speech criticizing the United States for, well, being a big baby, for wanting the U.N. to do what it wants it to do, for not playing well with others, and not paying its dues.
Hardest hitting quotes, IMHO:
“And today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.”
“Today’s new national security challenges basically thumb their noses at old notions of national sovereignty. Security has gone global, and no country can afford to neglect the global institutions needed to manage it.”
”Back in Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt’s day, building a strong, effective UN that could play this kind of role was a bipartisan enterprise, with the likes of Arthur Vandenberg and John Foster Dulles joining Democrats to support the new body. Who are their successors in American politics? Who will campaign in 2008 for a new multilateral national security?”
And, when asked by reporters, here’s some of what John Bolton had to say:
“Well, on that speech, this is a very, very grave mistake by the Deputy Secretary General. We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform at the United Nations. And it's a difficult effort, but it's an effort that we feel very strongly about. And to have the Deputy Secretary General criticize the United States in such a manner, can only do grave harm to the United Nations. Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations. And even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. That fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant, it's just illegitimate. So we've thought about this a good deal and we didn't respond to it yesterday evening when we got a copy of the speech. But what we think the only way at this point to mitigate the damage to the United Nations is that the Secretary General Kofi Annan, we think has to personally and publicly repudiate this speech at the earliest possible opportunity. Because otherwise I fear the consequences, not just for the reform effort, but for the organization as a whole. I spoke to the Secretary General this morning. I said I've known you since 1989, and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time. That's why the only hope I think is that the Secretary General comes to the rescue of the organization and repudiates the speech.”
What? A liberal bureaucrat made some mild (and accurate, and predictable) criticisms of American policy and media (not the American people) re the United Nations, and this idiot is trying to turn it into an international incident? Foco him.
Reading James Wolcott, a writer I like, I found a link to a blog called Global Guerrillas, run by a guy named John Robb.
He was linked by Wolcott because of some comments Robb had made on the recent passing of the unlamented Zarqawi.
Sample, from Wolcott: “If we put Zarqawi within a historical context, he was able to do what Che hoped to do with a foco insurgency... In essence, he proved that within a modern context (open source warfare and systems disruption), it is possible to seed the collapse of a state."
According to the Global Guerrila website/blog: “A foco insurgency is one that forgoes the methodical political indoctrination of the population in favor of small bands of fast moving guerrillas that gain victories against state forces.”
Here’s some of Mr. Robb’s bio: “John is a highly regarded analyst and speaker, with a focus on the intersection of terrorism, infrastructure, and markets. In this capacity, he has briefed Silicon Valley's technology elite and many of the top hedge fund managers in the world. Audience reactions have been spectacular.’
He recently had an editorial in the New York Times. In it, he wrote, “…[O]ut-innovating the insurgency will most likely prove unsuccessful. The insurgency uses an open-source community approach (similar to the decentralized development process now prevalent in the software industry) to warfare that is extremely quick and innovative.”
I have no doubt that Mr. Robb is of value regarding strategic/tactical/entrepreneurial approaches to the, um, War on Terror. But still – don’t you get the sinking feeling that Mr. Robb not only has possible solutions to the, um, War on Terror, but has also found a Niche Market as a marketing/terrorist consultant?
He creeps me out. I shun him. Foco him.
United Nations?
This really has me buffaloed.
U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown (a fuzzy thinking one-worlder, ipso facto), gave a speech criticizing the United States for, well, being a big baby, for wanting the U.N. to do what it wants it to do, for not playing well with others, and not paying its dues.
Hardest hitting quotes, IMHO:
“And today, on a very wide number of areas, from Lebanon and Afghanistan to Syria, Iran and the Palestinian issue, the US is constructively engaged with the UN. But that is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.”
“Today’s new national security challenges basically thumb their noses at old notions of national sovereignty. Security has gone global, and no country can afford to neglect the global institutions needed to manage it.”
”Back in Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt’s day, building a strong, effective UN that could play this kind of role was a bipartisan enterprise, with the likes of Arthur Vandenberg and John Foster Dulles joining Democrats to support the new body. Who are their successors in American politics? Who will campaign in 2008 for a new multilateral national security?”
And, when asked by reporters, here’s some of what John Bolton had to say:
“Well, on that speech, this is a very, very grave mistake by the Deputy Secretary General. We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform at the United Nations. And it's a difficult effort, but it's an effort that we feel very strongly about. And to have the Deputy Secretary General criticize the United States in such a manner, can only do grave harm to the United Nations. Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations. And even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. That fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant, it's just illegitimate. So we've thought about this a good deal and we didn't respond to it yesterday evening when we got a copy of the speech. But what we think the only way at this point to mitigate the damage to the United Nations is that the Secretary General Kofi Annan, we think has to personally and publicly repudiate this speech at the earliest possible opportunity. Because otherwise I fear the consequences, not just for the reform effort, but for the organization as a whole. I spoke to the Secretary General this morning. I said I've known you since 1989, and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time. That's why the only hope I think is that the Secretary General comes to the rescue of the organization and repudiates the speech.”
What? A liberal bureaucrat made some mild (and accurate, and predictable) criticisms of American policy and media (not the American people) re the United Nations, and this idiot is trying to turn it into an international incident? Foco him.
posted by Merle Kessler at 7:49 PM
1 Comments:
It's a stupid reaction, but I'm not surprised. John Bolton was picked for his job specifically because he hates the U.N. His appointment was one of George W. Bush's gifts to his conservative base.
Post a Comment
<< Home