Saturday, April 01, 2006
The Case for Martial Law in Iraq
Suppose the United States was faced with insurrection on the home front. Suppose we had insurgents bombing and killing and creating chaos. Suppose the police was understaffed to handle mounting attacks and the safety and security of American citizens was threatened to the extent that a breakdown in law and order was imminent. Were this the situation, would there be any hesitancy in imposing martial law, taking control of the situation and restoring law and order? Or would we stand around wringing our hands hoping local and /or state police would somehow get control of the situation and tell the country that everything is going fine , there are signs of improvement and be patient? You know the answer to this hypothetical situation but this latter response is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today.
There is a line in “Heartbreak Ridge” the movie, referring to the Korean and Vietnam Wars which depicts the ongoing status of our military’s role in world conflicts post WWII. The line spoken by Clint Eastwood is,” We may have lost the war but we won the battles.” This is exactly why our military knows they are doing a good job and yet are faced with a letdown when the war ends. They won the battles and their country lost the war. Only the politicians who start the wars ( and some wars, like in Iraq ,are justified ) are to blame for the war losses. They go into the war saying they will listen to the military and then they don’t define or insist on complete and total victory. There was no imposition of martial law in Korea nor Vietnam. There was a commander of the military operation but there was no military commander to oversee the institution of the protection and institution of individual rights after the fighting was done. The contrast with Japan and how it was handled and the ensuing success is so obvious you would think it would be a no brainer to follow that pattern. But instead of taking a lesson from history we have politicians who are so programed to try to please the majority that they ignore what it is their job to do and end up pandering to the perceived feelings of “world ”opinion. The question they should face is,” Do we want to see if we can not be seen wrong by the “world” or do we want to protect the American citizens and their country from harm?” These politicians were not elected to create an impossible image of America where all countries look upon us as strong and benign. They were elected to protect us from foreign invasion and to defend our interests in the world from acts of violence.
No matter how much reassurance is offered about our “progress’ in Iraq, this will not change the hatred and ongoing violence between the sectarian militias. Putting a regime in power that favors their sect over others is a sure recipe for further conflict and insurgency. Calling for elections to establish this power doesn’t change the resentment of those out of power. Hoping for reconciliation between the factions is like asking the Republicans to share power with the Democrats even though they won the election. Which brings up another obvious observation our politicians overlooked. If the Republicans and Democrats can’t “come together” in defending our nation, what makes them think another country will form a coalition to defend their country? Peace and security via law and order do not just happen. They must be established and maintained. So now that we are pursuing a no win policy relying on Iraqis to “come together” on their own, how do we correct this erroneous approach?
First of all our leaders need to recognize that relying on others in a country torn by rival gangs to have a revelation that our way of life is superior and ought to be emulated is a venture into la-la land. Then they need to announce that our current plan needs revision and the place to start is to reinstitute control via martial law and establishing a country where law and order thrive and is enforced. Elections are meaningless when anarchy reigns. If they must give altruistic rationale they could always say it is for the good of the Iraqi people to have law and order. Such a stance would be an undercover excuse for our overall mission of preempting terrorism for our own protection but if our politicians can’t seem to understand or articulate the truth of our mission maybe they could at least do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Finally the policy must be made clear that this is not a one time experiment but our strategy on the war on terrorist states ( i.e. those that harbor and support terrorists ) is ongoing. We need to issue a list of those nations we are suspicious of and warn them any verification will bring down the same operation on their country. We should not be content to live in a world where tin horn dictators, barbaric mullahs and jumping gun waving crowds cause us to wonder what they are up to and whether they will get weapons and use them to destroy our security and safety.
This is all that is necessary to turn this latest stalemate into victory. When playing chess and you see a stalemate developing you protect your resources, plan a strategy for victory or you relent with the fact that a stalemate is all you are capable of achieving. We do not have to settle for another stalemate in Iraq ( and declare a limited “victory” ). No one looks on the peace “achieved” in Vietnam or Korea as conclusive victory. And it was all because we did not finish the job. We were fuzzy going in and we knew not how to handle the end game. We need the power utilized we have demonstrated to control the outcome. This cannot happen without a period to establish law and order. And the mechanism to do this is martial law.
There is a line in “Heartbreak Ridge” the movie, referring to the Korean and Vietnam Wars which depicts the ongoing status of our military’s role in world conflicts post WWII. The line spoken by Clint Eastwood is,” We may have lost the war but we won the battles.” This is exactly why our military knows they are doing a good job and yet are faced with a letdown when the war ends. They won the battles and their country lost the war. Only the politicians who start the wars ( and some wars, like in Iraq ,are justified ) are to blame for the war losses. They go into the war saying they will listen to the military and then they don’t define or insist on complete and total victory. There was no imposition of martial law in Korea nor Vietnam. There was a commander of the military operation but there was no military commander to oversee the institution of the protection and institution of individual rights after the fighting was done. The contrast with Japan and how it was handled and the ensuing success is so obvious you would think it would be a no brainer to follow that pattern. But instead of taking a lesson from history we have politicians who are so programed to try to please the majority that they ignore what it is their job to do and end up pandering to the perceived feelings of “world ”opinion. The question they should face is,” Do we want to see if we can not be seen wrong by the “world” or do we want to protect the American citizens and their country from harm?” These politicians were not elected to create an impossible image of America where all countries look upon us as strong and benign. They were elected to protect us from foreign invasion and to defend our interests in the world from acts of violence.
No matter how much reassurance is offered about our “progress’ in Iraq, this will not change the hatred and ongoing violence between the sectarian militias. Putting a regime in power that favors their sect over others is a sure recipe for further conflict and insurgency. Calling for elections to establish this power doesn’t change the resentment of those out of power. Hoping for reconciliation between the factions is like asking the Republicans to share power with the Democrats even though they won the election. Which brings up another obvious observation our politicians overlooked. If the Republicans and Democrats can’t “come together” in defending our nation, what makes them think another country will form a coalition to defend their country? Peace and security via law and order do not just happen. They must be established and maintained. So now that we are pursuing a no win policy relying on Iraqis to “come together” on their own, how do we correct this erroneous approach?
First of all our leaders need to recognize that relying on others in a country torn by rival gangs to have a revelation that our way of life is superior and ought to be emulated is a venture into la-la land. Then they need to announce that our current plan needs revision and the place to start is to reinstitute control via martial law and establishing a country where law and order thrive and is enforced. Elections are meaningless when anarchy reigns. If they must give altruistic rationale they could always say it is for the good of the Iraqi people to have law and order. Such a stance would be an undercover excuse for our overall mission of preempting terrorism for our own protection but if our politicians can’t seem to understand or articulate the truth of our mission maybe they could at least do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Finally the policy must be made clear that this is not a one time experiment but our strategy on the war on terrorist states ( i.e. those that harbor and support terrorists ) is ongoing. We need to issue a list of those nations we are suspicious of and warn them any verification will bring down the same operation on their country. We should not be content to live in a world where tin horn dictators, barbaric mullahs and jumping gun waving crowds cause us to wonder what they are up to and whether they will get weapons and use them to destroy our security and safety.
This is all that is necessary to turn this latest stalemate into victory. When playing chess and you see a stalemate developing you protect your resources, plan a strategy for victory or you relent with the fact that a stalemate is all you are capable of achieving. We do not have to settle for another stalemate in Iraq ( and declare a limited “victory” ). No one looks on the peace “achieved” in Vietnam or Korea as conclusive victory. And it was all because we did not finish the job. We were fuzzy going in and we knew not how to handle the end game. We need the power utilized we have demonstrated to control the outcome. This cannot happen without a period to establish law and order. And the mechanism to do this is martial law.
An Evaded Natalee HollowayTheory
After months and months of investigations and a one track search for a dead Natalee Holloway there is one common thread that seems to be constantly overlooked. First of all there is the bizarre range of theories offered by the Aruba authorities. For instance take the latest from Gerald Dompig (Deputy Chief of Police for Aruba). To quote Officer Dompig ,” We feel strongly that she probably went into shock or something happened to her system with all the alcohol-maybe on top of that, other drugs, which either she took or they gave her- and that she...just collapsed”. (Associated Press March 23, 2006).
Now what is wrong with this theory? Deputy Dompig says nothing about why he feels so strongly (on the basis of what evidence), nor does he indicate what happened to Natalee’s body and who is he saying gave her drugs and by what evidence does he arrive at the conclusion that drugs even played a part in her disappearance? Beth Twitty has repeatedly indicated the Aruba authorities are hard to get information out of. Who should be under suspicion when they utter nonsensical theories and withhold information?
Let’s look at the motive for killing Natalee? Having sex (if that occurred) is hardly a motive for killing and if it was rape wouldn’t there be some kind of wounds on the perpetrator(s)? *There was evidence of wounds/bruises on Joran immediately after he was taken into custody. If these came from Natalee what happens to Deputy Dompig's theory that she passed out from a failure of her "system"? What other motive would be plausible? A robber wouldn’t have bothered killing over what could have been nothing more than a purse snatching. Imagine three young boys so adept at killing and disposing of a body that not a trace of evidence can be found. Even the most cleverly planned crimes leave traces of inconsistencies that evolve into leads. But nothing in the physical realm is found and the question must be asked why? A teenager who killed would be in a state of panic and make a panic decision to cover up the evidence. It hardly seems plausible that this panic would produce a perfect crime. Plus what would unite the three boys to concoct obvious stories that could be easily discredited? The answer lies in the false assumptions directing the investigation.
False assumptions without evidence to contradict them leaves only the option to examine the assumptions leading nowhere and formulate a theory that makes all of the components fit. This has not been done by the Aruba authorities and it has not been done by the media hounds playing detective. There is a common assumption that Natalee was killed and that assumption is blocking any investigation into what explains the lack of motive, the Aruba authorities lack of disclosure, the theories that don’t add up and the perceived cleverness of the perpetrator(s). This leaves us with rejecting all of this hodge podge of inconclusive findings and conjectures and starting from a fresh perspective.
To begin, let’s ask why a 17 year old boy would be able to gamble where he is underage? What would sanction such behavior? Most businesses are very conscious of breaking the law and are careful to check I.D.s, spot possible violators and avoid fines or punishment. There did not seem to be any such concern by the casino owners/employees. Joran was not only sanctioned in these places but he was known and very visible. If there was no concern with the violation he was committing by the proprietors what does this say about their relationship with the authorities? Would it not be reasonable to assume the proprietors had little or nothing to fear from the authorities? Why? Did they have some common interest that superseded compliance with the law? One has to wonder.
There was the statement by Joran’s father that indicated without a body there is no case. Why would he say that? What made him think a body was not going to turn up? Was this some form of reassurance that Natalee was unlikely to be located? And what kind of a father allows his son to roam the casinos until late at night without knowing how he is able to afford such a lifestyle? There is developing a common thread that there are many parties involved in bizarre behavior indicating a common cause.
Realizing there are many inconsistencies in what we know by following the premise that Natalee was murdered , Let’s look at another possibility and see how that fits with the knowledge we have. Suppose Natalee was lured by Joran to a location where an abductor (s) were waiting to take Natalee away from the island for the purpose of trafficking her to a pimp in another country. Suppose the casino owner and or/an employee and the Aruba government were in on the scheme. This scenario begins to explain a lot of former inconsistencies.
First of all it would explain why no body or evidence has been found. Secondly it would explain the strange statement by Joran’s father. Third it would explain how Joran could roam the casinos and have money for gambling. Fourth it would explain the lack of disclosure by the Aruba police and the poor methods of investigation and interrogation. It would also explain how a 17 year old could commit a crime without getting caught. It would also explain the red herrings of Deputy Dompig. Further it would explain the involvement of Joran as a hustler to lure an attractive girl into the hands of abductors paid off by the casinos and protected by the government.
If there was some way the government of Aruba could exonerate itself from any involvement such as producing a body or getting a confession from a suspect they would have done so by now. But I suspect they feel their only strategy at this point is to play dumb and try to throw off any further inquiry by concentrating on possible causes of death, the shifting sands , the vast area that would take more effort to search than they have resources to accomplish, etc, etc, etc.
Only if they are put under investigation themselves will you get a rat to squeal to save his own skin. And none of our media giants seem willing to go down that road. Those who have been following the story and reporting on it have bought into the innocence of the Aruba government and it is this trepidation that very well could be leaving Natalee at the mercy of a human trafficker. It is inconceivable that a girl would disappear without a trace in a part of the world where others have mysteriously disappeared without someone profiting to the extent they could buy off the government. This explains the problem of motive and all of the other aspects of the case that do not fit with the killing of Natalee. If she is still alive I am sure she wonders why no one is searching for her where she is. The reason rests with a false assumption which is the source of all failed attempts at solving a problem and/or a crime. If you’re looking for a killer you first must establish he killed. If you’re looking for the missing you cannot assume missing is equivalent to murdered. To get the right answers you have to ask the right questions. The unasked question that is pertinent to the case is, “ What best explains what we know?” This is the question that, if answered, will lead us to finding a missing Alabama girl.
* This is information I was unaware of in my article in American Chronicles ( linked above).
Now what is wrong with this theory? Deputy Dompig says nothing about why he feels so strongly (on the basis of what evidence), nor does he indicate what happened to Natalee’s body and who is he saying gave her drugs and by what evidence does he arrive at the conclusion that drugs even played a part in her disappearance? Beth Twitty has repeatedly indicated the Aruba authorities are hard to get information out of. Who should be under suspicion when they utter nonsensical theories and withhold information?
Let’s look at the motive for killing Natalee? Having sex (if that occurred) is hardly a motive for killing and if it was rape wouldn’t there be some kind of wounds on the perpetrator(s)? *There was evidence of wounds/bruises on Joran immediately after he was taken into custody. If these came from Natalee what happens to Deputy Dompig's theory that she passed out from a failure of her "system"? What other motive would be plausible? A robber wouldn’t have bothered killing over what could have been nothing more than a purse snatching. Imagine three young boys so adept at killing and disposing of a body that not a trace of evidence can be found. Even the most cleverly planned crimes leave traces of inconsistencies that evolve into leads. But nothing in the physical realm is found and the question must be asked why? A teenager who killed would be in a state of panic and make a panic decision to cover up the evidence. It hardly seems plausible that this panic would produce a perfect crime. Plus what would unite the three boys to concoct obvious stories that could be easily discredited? The answer lies in the false assumptions directing the investigation.
False assumptions without evidence to contradict them leaves only the option to examine the assumptions leading nowhere and formulate a theory that makes all of the components fit. This has not been done by the Aruba authorities and it has not been done by the media hounds playing detective. There is a common assumption that Natalee was killed and that assumption is blocking any investigation into what explains the lack of motive, the Aruba authorities lack of disclosure, the theories that don’t add up and the perceived cleverness of the perpetrator(s). This leaves us with rejecting all of this hodge podge of inconclusive findings and conjectures and starting from a fresh perspective.
To begin, let’s ask why a 17 year old boy would be able to gamble where he is underage? What would sanction such behavior? Most businesses are very conscious of breaking the law and are careful to check I.D.s, spot possible violators and avoid fines or punishment. There did not seem to be any such concern by the casino owners/employees. Joran was not only sanctioned in these places but he was known and very visible. If there was no concern with the violation he was committing by the proprietors what does this say about their relationship with the authorities? Would it not be reasonable to assume the proprietors had little or nothing to fear from the authorities? Why? Did they have some common interest that superseded compliance with the law? One has to wonder.
There was the statement by Joran’s father that indicated without a body there is no case. Why would he say that? What made him think a body was not going to turn up? Was this some form of reassurance that Natalee was unlikely to be located? And what kind of a father allows his son to roam the casinos until late at night without knowing how he is able to afford such a lifestyle? There is developing a common thread that there are many parties involved in bizarre behavior indicating a common cause.
Realizing there are many inconsistencies in what we know by following the premise that Natalee was murdered , Let’s look at another possibility and see how that fits with the knowledge we have. Suppose Natalee was lured by Joran to a location where an abductor (s) were waiting to take Natalee away from the island for the purpose of trafficking her to a pimp in another country. Suppose the casino owner and or/an employee and the Aruba government were in on the scheme. This scenario begins to explain a lot of former inconsistencies.
First of all it would explain why no body or evidence has been found. Secondly it would explain the strange statement by Joran’s father. Third it would explain how Joran could roam the casinos and have money for gambling. Fourth it would explain the lack of disclosure by the Aruba police and the poor methods of investigation and interrogation. It would also explain how a 17 year old could commit a crime without getting caught. It would also explain the red herrings of Deputy Dompig. Further it would explain the involvement of Joran as a hustler to lure an attractive girl into the hands of abductors paid off by the casinos and protected by the government.
If there was some way the government of Aruba could exonerate itself from any involvement such as producing a body or getting a confession from a suspect they would have done so by now. But I suspect they feel their only strategy at this point is to play dumb and try to throw off any further inquiry by concentrating on possible causes of death, the shifting sands , the vast area that would take more effort to search than they have resources to accomplish, etc, etc, etc.
Only if they are put under investigation themselves will you get a rat to squeal to save his own skin. And none of our media giants seem willing to go down that road. Those who have been following the story and reporting on it have bought into the innocence of the Aruba government and it is this trepidation that very well could be leaving Natalee at the mercy of a human trafficker. It is inconceivable that a girl would disappear without a trace in a part of the world where others have mysteriously disappeared without someone profiting to the extent they could buy off the government. This explains the problem of motive and all of the other aspects of the case that do not fit with the killing of Natalee. If she is still alive I am sure she wonders why no one is searching for her where she is. The reason rests with a false assumption which is the source of all failed attempts at solving a problem and/or a crime. If you’re looking for a killer you first must establish he killed. If you’re looking for the missing you cannot assume missing is equivalent to murdered. To get the right answers you have to ask the right questions. The unasked question that is pertinent to the case is, “ What best explains what we know?” This is the question that, if answered, will lead us to finding a missing Alabama girl.
* This is information I was unaware of in my article in American Chronicles ( linked above).
