COBRA II REVIEW: Part 1

Prelude

I apologize for having taken far longer to write up a review of this book than I meant to take. It’s not that I had to mull over the information afterwards to get my brain wrapped around the book, nor was due to my lack of opinion on the book’s merits...

It was because of the “target rich” environment this book provides. I had to really wrestle with coming up with as concise as possible, yet reasonably complete summary of just what is essentially wrong with Cobra II.

If you would care to review more concise and more specialized reviews instead, I highly recommend Victor Davis Hanson’s Commentary piece and PrairiePundit’s thoughts on the subject.


My Cliff's Notes version would read:

The authors make a lot of hay while failing to provide adequate support for many of their assertions, even where I would like to (and do) agree with their end position. Although Victor Davis Hanson (link above) finds Cobra II flawed but worthwhile, I cannot make the same recommendation.

What makes a book “successful” IMHO? aka “A long, slow wade into the deep end”

(Yeah, the rest of this post is a little tedious, but at least you'll know what the standards are....)

I won’t just recommend or keep books because they embody or present a great truth that I want to keep at hand for further study, or just for the renewed enjoyment that comes from revisiting them. I very often recommend or collect books that must be judged, in the final analysis, as complete failures from the author’s "message" point of view. I do this when, though the author(s) fail to make their case, they still provide a wealth of hard data or historical evidence that is in and of itself very useful. It is a quirk of mine to collect books where the author or authors lay out all of the salient points, prove to have an obsession for hard facts, and a knack for finding the most minute of details -- sufficient information for the reader to form their own judgements -- yet still fail to prove their argument.

When this happens it seems almost as if the authors miss the point of what they are writing about. Examples of this that immediately come to mind, that I recommend and keep in my library, are Battleship: The Sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse and The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

Battleship (my book doesn’t have the subtitle on the spine – perhaps it was on the dust jacket) is remarkable for its gripping account of the sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse by the Japanese just days after Pearl Harbor. The author (some editions seem to have a co-author listed) lays out the timelines and all the geographical, operational, technical, political and situational facts in the finest detail. The book reveals the important personalities, command dynamics, and individual actions taken. For all the accuracy in recreating the events of the battle, and in spite of the very specific and accurate title, the book fails because the author’s entire effort reaches beyond the events and builds up to the crowning assertion that because English battleships were vulnerable when used improperly (without any air cover), battleships in general were too vulnerable to airpower and therefore obsolete. The author didn’t even adequately make the case that just under-armed English battleships were obsolete. When I first finished reading this book years ago (1979-80?), I wondered: given the quality and scholarship that went into the book, perhaps there was an editor’s hand involved in an effort to generate sales through pandering to a then-contemporary controversy over plana to reactivate the U.S. Iowa class battleships? (I intend to someday read some other edition and look for differences.)

The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy is another wonderful resource that uses a tremendous amount of history and economic data to try and build a case that the US was/is destined to follow in the footsteps of earlier Great Powers that ‘overspent’ the nation’s treasure on defense. The book is worth the price as a primer on the Hapsburg Empire alone, but the author’s attempt to tie the goings on of settled distant history to today’s unsettled ‘future history’ and to draw so direct a corollary between the foibles of past ‘empires’ to the U.S.’s current superpower status is in a word, "farcical".

The cherry-picking of then-current economic information didn’t hold up at the time of the writing and it sure doesn’t hold up in retrospect. Although I suppose the author could make the case he was right about the root cause of the demise of the Soviet Union, his evaluation and presentation of the relative cost of defense for the US was poor: At the time of the writing (and even more so now) it wasn’t a question of whether the US wanted to buy “guns” or “butter”, but rather one of “how many guns” AND “how much butter” do we want to buy at the same time?

These books establish the baseline for what is my lowest-level definition of “worthwhile” non-fiction, and Cobra II does not rise to anywhere near this minimum standard.

Tomorrow: What were the authors' 'aiming' at?

Another Stupid 'Survey': What American Men Think?

According to an Esquire-sponsored 'survey', the "American Man" : "surprise! -- leans slightly to the Left".

1. Don't see it in the responses.
2. Don't know enough about methodology, but at best any conclusions drawn from this 'survey' could only be made concerning men who use the internet:

The Survey of the American Man was conducted exclusively for Esquire by Beta Research Corporation, an independent firm located in Syosset, New York. The 1,083 respondents were randomly selected and are a representative national sample of American men aged 25 and older. They completed the online survey between March 3 and March 7, 2006.

I wonder how badly "God-less Blue-Staters" skewed the outcomes?

Last Cobra II Review Teaser..... Honest!

Well, not that anyone still gives a flying &*^$# anymore, I've finished my comprehensive review of Cobra II - all 3400+ words of it. As soon as I figure out how I want to break it up into separate posts, I'll start pushing it onto the Blog. Maybe in doing so I can whittle it down a little more.....

About That "Failed" Missile Test

Seems everyone sees some good in the failed North Korean long-range missile test, from left-wing moonbats who think it proves there's no real threat, to the rest of the country who thinks it was a setback for the NoKo's and it gives us some breathing room. Well for anyone who might derive some satisfaction from the PRNK failing to get their Taepodong missile downrange, a cautionary note: the missile 'failed' but if the NoKo's learned something from their test, the test was 'successful' to some degree.

The good news is, no matter how good they are, if they really are going to launch another one soon, there is no way they could have evaluated the data from the last launch and made improvements in time to get them on board this next one. A rapid launch of a second test missile could mean a lot of things, such as a parallel technology development program, where there are significant technology differnces between the two missiles, so a failure of one wouldn't neccessarily impact test of another. In a 'turd-world' country like the PRNK, it could also just as easily be because a little despot insists the launch goes ahead anyway.

F-35 Lightning II? I Hope Not, But Expect the Worst

Tomorrow, the first public viewing of the F-35 (versus the earlier 'test & demo' XF-35) with outer finishes applied will be held at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth. It isn't a proper 'rollout' IMHO -- more of a controlled media event with 'invitation only' representatives from the workforce present.

Let us hope the rumors are NOT true about the Air Force naming it the "Lightning II" . What a predictable, dull and unimaginative moniker. We had a real trend going for a while: planes were actually receiving NEW names (B-2 'Spirit', EF-18G 'Growler', F-22 'Raptor'). If it has to be a play on the old 'Lightning' (one of my favorite WWII allied aircraft, for reasons that include family ties), make it the 'Chain Lightning' - in honor of a design that never made it into production due to the timely end of WWII, and because of the 'chain' nature of the F-35 and network-centric warfare.

It won't really matter in the end anyway: the pilots and ground crews will have the final say, and if they don't like the 'official' name, they'll give it one they DO like.

UPDATE: Yeah, it's the Lightning II. The AF Chief of Staff dressed it up a little bit in his speech, pointing out that the 'Lightning' name has respect in the States (P-38) AND Great Britain (English Electric - Later BAC - Lightning). But "Chain Lightning" would have done the same thing AND been less humdrum. Plane looks good though! The general public will note a lot of changes from the original platform if they bother to really look at it.

Ken Lay Cheated Justice?

I would say to the author (or more likely the "snazzy-title editor" at Forbes):
Dude...Ken Lay is Dead. Deceased. Gone on to his Great Reward. Finito.

Sure, in the end he doesn't pay a criminal-court-mandated monetary price, and his prison sentence was effectively reduced to 'time-served', but....he.....is.....still..... dead.

No doubt having paid with his life through the stress of choosing the 'dark side' and getting caught. Now his victims can seek monetary redress EARLIER through civil courts. I hope they find some compensation for their pain and discomfort caused by Ken Lay(et al's) misdeeds.

What is the motivation behind the author's article? Was he planning on milking the story through the appeals process and now he has to work hard to find some other scandal?

I can visualize the author of this Forbe's piece in the 19th Century Wild West:

Died?! Died?! Goll'durn it Sheriff, we rode three days ta' get here from Alkali Flats so weez cuud see us a hangin'! Now I don' care if the varmit IS dead, String 'em up anyways!

Happy Birthday America!

Here's to another 'American Century'!

Breaking News: Men Think Women Are Sexually Interested When They May Not Actually Be Interested (Duh!)

A 'new’ ‘study’ is out, and Maurice J. Levesque, “an associate professor of psychology at Elon University, in North Carolina” is perplexed by his findings. It seems to me he must have poor research instincts AND low testosterone.

Somebody tell this dweeb about When Harry Met Sally.

Harry Burns: You realize of course that we could never be friends.
Sally Albright: Why not?
Harry Burns: What I'm saying is - and this is not a come-on in any way, shape or form - is that men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.
Sally Albright: That's not true. I have a number of men friends and there is no sex involved.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: No you don't.
Sally Albright: Yes I do.
Harry Burns: You only think you do.
Sally Albright: You say I'm having sex with these men without my knowledge?
Harry Burns: No, what I'm saying is they all WANT to have sex with you.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: They do not.
Harry Burns: Do too.
Sally Albright: How do you know?
Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sally Albright: That's too bad. You were the only person I knew in New York.

Newsweek and "America's Bad Image"

Nice puff piece...Pinheads...

In a Newsweek 'article' on "America's Bad Reputation", the authors actually illustrate the efficacy of the Western MSM as the creator, projector, and promoter of that image. I'm sure it never occurs to them that they are part of the problem.

I would be remiss if I did not also note that the article highlights the point that, quite properly, the opinions of the uninformed masses in other countries carries no weight with the President. May it ever be so.

U.S. Ties Italy in “Interesting” World Cup Match

In a really bizarre World Cup match -- the whole group the US is in is a wild one -- the US soccer team tied the Italian side at 1-1.

My ‘Soccer Stars’ watched it on the big screen, and I listened to it on a UK Daily Sun web feed while working in my study . Neither my family nor the English announcers could figure out a lot of the things that referee was doing.
The IHT, no lover of the American tribe, raises even more questions in my mind about the officiating:

‘Larrionda had refereed a previous match involving the U.S. that generated controversy.

In June 2003, during a Confederations Cup match in France, he awarded Turkey a controversial penalty kick and Turkey scored again later on a play that appeared to be offsides. Larrionda was banned for six months in 2002 by his country's soccer federation for unspecified "irregularities." Two days before the suspension he had been chosen to officiate at the 2002 World Cup, which he was then forced to miss.”

What was it with that referee? I don’t think he had it in for either the US or Italy. I think he felt cheated out of a World Cup already and was trying to get two Cups worth out of one game. May it be his last.

On the plus side, unless you’re a quibbler, the “English-speaking” agreed-to themes of the match seems to be that although it was a tough game, the U.S. brought a lot to the stadium today and caught the Italians off guard.

A Message From Flyover Country

Corn Farmer Marketing

Got this (click on pic for larger view) in the mail today. While I somewhat agree with the sentiment, I am not a very big fan of Ethanol: I need more therms per gallon.

What this picture does is remind me of what I think about every time I fly crosscountry: that if you want to see what raw economic power looks like, spend some time looking out the window on your next flight from New York to LA. Notice how until you hit the foothills of the Rockies, you can see land in cultivation as far as the eye can see, out of both sides of the airplane. Notice the small towns, and the massive network of paved roads, railroads, and in some places waterways that link these farms to small towns and then to bigger ones, and then those to even bigger cities. You are looking at an economic engine that spans a continent and among other things, feeds the world.

Sing Hadji Girl Loud and Proud!

It occurred to me that someone not in possession of a reasonable amount of mental agility might claim that the parallels between Hadji Girl and Napalm Sticks to Kids in my earlier post are evidence of Iraq being ‘Just Like Vietnam’.

For those too dense or lazy to see this kind of GI song-writing spans history, or do your own research, let me point out Strafe the Town and Kill All the People dates back to Korea.

Let My People Sing

These kind of songs are only part of a spectrum of music and poetry that comes from the front lines. As Les Cleveland (1984) wrote so well:

These can be analysed as improvisations suited to the wartime, frontier-style, male-dominant, community life of soldiers in camps and bivouacs. Because the heightening of group cohesion is valuable for military morale, any tendencies towards irreverence or idiosyncratic expression which their content exhibits are tolerated under the mantle of comic licence. This gives the folklore of soldiers (or for that matter of any comparable occupational group faced with hazardous and uncomfortable work conditions) an important integratory, social control function. The democratic soldier can accept the discomfort and personal risks involved in service for the State as long as he is permitted to grumble, protest and joke about his fate, to ridicule his leaders and to assert his essential autonomy and personal dignity, even at the cannon's mouth.

The upper-echelon’s response to Hadji Girl is pretty much what I would expect from a bunch of ‘careerists’, ‘managers’ and ‘executives’. It is, in the long run, also subversive to keeping good order and discipline.

This is the Marine Corps? Where are the freaking LEADERS?

Ensuring a Future "Nuclear Deterrent"

And the press reports it as the need is merely a matter of opinion.

Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.

Critics say the project could trigger a new arms race with Russia and China, and undercut arguments that countries such as Iran and North Korea must stop their nuclear programs.

See, there’s two sides to the story: Proponents and Critics. Where is the information we need to judge the credibility of each ‘opinion’?

Hmmm, the Proponents are charged with the responsibility for National Defense, the Critics, while no doubt feeling everything, have responsibility for NOTHING.

The Proponents understand old nuclear weapons are a bad thing both from a utility AND reliability point of view. The critics see those points as good things.

The Proponents have been criticized for not paying enough attention to future defense needs (such as China). The Critics pretend China wouldn’t KEEP building its arsenal if we stopped modernizing ours and nukes everywhere would just ‘go away’.

Just two different opinions alright; but only the Proponents’ opinion is grounded in reality.

The Critics need to go back to sucking on their bongs, and leave Defense to the adults.

And the press has to understand we notice things like their use of terms like so-called followed by "scare quotes", i.e., "Nuclear Deterrent".

A F***ing Song. Ooohh the Horror

(Hat Tip Little Green Footballs)

Well I hope some PC ninny at DoD really didn't issue a statement like CAIR indicates in their press release, but it is probably too much to hope for.
So,in the interest of providing some perspective to this NON-STORY, get some historical background here. It took me five minutes to find, and it looks like a great jumping off place for more searching.

Here's just a couple of highlights:

...Like soldiers from time immemorial they sang of epic drinking bouts and encounters with exotic young women...

...Songs provided a means for the expression of protest, fear and frustration, of grief and of longing for home....

We know that these songs were occasionally played on AFVN Radio and they were probably also played on the "bullshit net" which the troops operated illegally on field radios. The extremely high rate of troop mobility meant that these songs spread rapidly.

...Others display a kind of black humor mixed with violence, in which, in the words of Les Cleveland, the thing most abhorred is embraced with a kind of lunatic enthusiasm: "Strafe the Town and Kill the People," "As We Came Around and Tried To Get Some More," and "Napalm Sticks to Kids"...

There are quite a few 'fair use' audio clips as well.

UPDATE @2307: Just searched for "Napalm Sticks to Kids" and this popped right up:

Napalm Sticks to Kids

World Cup Catch Up: Team USA! uh..What Happened?

More Dang. We (USA) really stunk up the stadium in our World Cup Opener.

Yeah we were up against the #2 team in the world, but the way the guys were (not) moving, we could have been beaten by #102. Interestingly, I listened to a 'off-tube' media feed from England at work, and when I got home my "soccer stars" (one past college player and one current one) had all the same critiques of the American 'side' as the Brits did, although the two Brit commentators expressed theirs in a more civilized manner. For those who don't know, the US is in one of two "Groups of Death", and we have the 'pleasure' of facing Italy next. Yeow.