Trying?

This is coolbert:

"I am trying!!" "I am doing the best I can!!" "I have sent a second letter!!"

These are the words of the Secretary General [Sec Gen] Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations, during his interview on the PBS broadcast "The News Hour", this last Friday night.

Regarding the situation in Burma. The ruling junta will NOT allow foreign aid workers to enter the country and presently ONLY a limited [small fraction] amount of relief aid is reaching the victims of Cyclone Nargis.

[Nargis was the strongest cyclone to strike this part of Burma in 100 years!! As with the tsunami of 2005, people in this part of the world [Irrawaddy delta] have no experience with this type of damage and devastation!]

The Sec Gen is TRY-ING to get the junta to cooperate with the international community, but it seems to be of no avail.

With regard to rice production, according to Ban Ki-moon:

* 20 % of the land devoted to rice agriculture is no longer fertile and cannot be productive due to inundation from salt water.

* Right NOW is the time for planting rice. SOMETHING needs to be done now to get the people of the Irrawaddy delta back on their feet or there will be future widespread starvation throughout all of Burma.

Ban Ki-moon also mentions in passing the concept of "forced" humanitarian intervention. It is obvious what he is talking about here. Military operations using combat action if necessary to bring aid to the victims of Nargis. Or even overthrowing the government of Burma!

A concept ["forced" humanitarian intervention] broached by Tony Blair in 1999. But, has been a concept around ever since the time of Hugo Grotius, but rarely implemented.

"scholars as far back as Grotius have argued for a right to use force for humanitarian intervention"

See this web site which discusses: "Humanitarian Intervention:The Case for Legitimacy"

"Forced" humanitarian intervention is a concept the international community is leery about? Interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation-state is NOT usually advisable?

"the underlying legal basis for the international system since the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648, recent events have led to what amounts to a serious rethinking of the strict adherence to non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states under certain circumstances."

"Under customary international law, sovereign states are protected by the rule of noninterference or nonintervention: states must refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of other states"

"The right of intervention must be restricted to the most egregious violations of human rights, such as genocide and violent mass ethnic expulsions."

"Forced" humanitarian intervention to be used, ONLY in response to the "most egregious violations"! Violations to include:

* Genocide. [think here Rwanda.]

* "Mass ethnic expulsions".

* War crimes.

* Crimes against humanity.

If "forced" humanitarian intervention was decided upon and implemented in Burma, rely ONLY UPON the U.S. military to carry out such an operation. With a smattering of military units from England, France, India, and probably just about no other. ONLY the U.S. military has the global reach, combined arms, ground, naval, and air assets to be effective, sustaining operations over a long period!

"Forced humanitarian intervention in Burma"? Do I see it happening? NO!

Without contradicting my self, please see this headline from the BBC [recent]:

"Burma neighbours in cyclone talks"

"Burma's handling of the crisis has caused a storm of international outrage
The Association of South East Asian Nation (Asean) is due to hold urgent talks to discuss ways of helping Burma's cyclone victims."

"We are discussing!", "I am trying!" Etc.

coolbert.

Cyclone Nargis.

This is coolbert:

The satellite photos out of Burma showing the area flooded by Cyclone Nargis reveal a truly apocalyptic situation.

Much of the Irrawaddy River delta and the low-lying area north of the delta to include Rangoon [Yangon] is under water.

Up to 100,000 [?] persons now believed to have perished in the cataclysm?

[it is amazing how quickly these casualty figures escalate. In an alarming and marked manner that astounds. First 5,000 dead, then 6,000, then 20,000, then 60,000, NOW 100,000!!!]

Disease, starvation, unrest will claim even more lives unless aid arrives IMMEDIATELY!

This [Irrawaddy delta] was too one of the main rice-growing areas of the world. Was prior to World War Two [WW2] primarily mangrove swamp, but has been cleared and given over to agriculture during the last sixty years!

An area, due to flooding from salt-water, that will no longer sustain crops as was harvested in the past? Exacerbating the current rice “shortage” world wide, driving up prices.

[let me reiterate: Rising sea levels and warmer ocean temperatures [both making for cyclonic storms of greater frequency and intensity], teeming and restive populations seemingly without hope and at the mercy of authoritarian and despotic regimes, inappropriate agricultural practices, etc., all a recipe for disaster!]

THE RESPONSE OF THE BURMESE JUNTA AT THIS TIME IS TEPID AT BEST!

Paranoid and just-don’t-seem-to-care. The junta is clueless and callous! “Things” could very well spiral out of control in a manner that cannot be anticipated.

This is exactly the type of situation British Admiral Parry has in mind for a breakdown of the world-order. Begins in a place like Burma. A taste of things to come. A calamity of biblical proportions leading to governmental and societal breakdown.

[a U.S. naval task forces with a helicopter-landing-carrier is standing by? The U.S. has already pledged $30 million in aid. I fear that just about the only way to get immediate aid to most of the folks in the flooded area will be by helicopter! Just operating several dozen “choppers” in such a situation for several weeks will cost, just by itself, way beyond the initial aid package!]

The Arakan region of Burma does have a Muslim population. Traditionally found in an area on the border with Bangladesh. Further north - - not where the cyclone has struck. These are the Rohingya peoples. Victims of ethnic cleansing at the hands of the junta! Muslims in Arakan are biding their time, wait for events to transpire?

coolbert.

Rangoon!

This is coolbert:

The capital city of Burma has been moved [began in 2005?], unexpectedly and without rationale, two hundred miles [320 kilometers] upriver from Rangoon [Yangon]! The ruling junta has done so, with the advice of astrologers, fearing an attack by the U.S. Marines?

"Mysterious motivations"

"While commentators have offered a host of reasons for the junta's sudden move north, ranging from astrology to military strategy to fears of a possible US-led invasion"

"Whether or not the move to Naypyidaw offers strategic military advantages is debatable, according to Andrew Selth, an expert on Myanmar's armed forces . . . 'In purely strategic terms, it would have been more sensible to diversify these critical north-south links and build more routes on the western side of the Irrawaddy [River], or in the east of the country.'"

[sensible from the standpoint of a rational thinking western military expert. The ruling junta in Burma has their OWN motivation for everything they do. And their rationality is NOT OUR rationality.]

"Selth said the increasing separation of Myanmar's ruling military generals from the civilian population would make it far easier for a potential foreign invader to target the junta through air strikes. Nevertheless, the argument previously put forward that the switch inland from the old coastal capital Yangon reduces the risk to the junta of a land invasion was probably taken into account by the military."

That the Burmese military ruling elite fears at attack by foreign powers is not without foundation?

* "In 1988, the US moved navy vessels into the area, apparently in the event of the state collapsing during the democratic uprisings."

* "In 1992, junta abuses against Muslims in Arakan state prompted the wrath of Saudi Arabia"

So, there is a minority of Muslims in Burma! Live in the Arakan region!

Burma - - here we come!!

coolbert.

Burma!!

This is coolbert:

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." - - Matthew 24:6-8

Here is the type of headline that shocks and gets your attention right away.

"Burma cyclone death toll could hit 63,000"

"Aid agencies are scrambling to mount a massive relief effort after military rulers in Burma, also known as Myanmar, said 22,464 people had been killed and a further 41,000 were missing feared dead after the weekend cyclone."

Also the type of scenario the British Admiral Parry had in mind when he predicted the world order will begin to break up starting around the year 2012.

"Parry . . . He identified the most dangerous flash points by overlaying maps showing the regions most threatened by factors such as agricultural decline, booming youth populations, water shortages, rising sea levels and radical Islam."

[this could best be termed as an Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield [IPB]].

"Parry predicts that as flood or starvation strikes, the most dangerous zones will be Africa, particularly the northern half; most of the Middle East and central Asia as far as northern China; a strip from Nepal to Indonesia; and perhaps eastern China."

"He [Parry] pinpoints 2012 to 2018 as the time when the current global power structure is likely to crumble."

The Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh, Burma, etc., is an area cited by Parry as being perhaps the one place in the world most subject to catastrophe with chaos and massive displacement of people being the result. A displacement that will set up a chain reaction on a world-wide scale that brings unintended and horrific consequences.

Rising sea levels, warmer waters, cyclones of ever-greater intensity, teeming populations living on low-lying lands close to the shore-line, authoritarian don't-care governments lackadaisical in efforts to assist disaster victims, etc. In the case of Bangladesh you also have the problem with Islamic fundamentalism.

Burma does not [?] have a restive Muslim population that is ripe for rebellion?

Nonetheless, this is a natural disaster that poses a particular problem for the Burmese dictatorial junta? The long-suppressed locals will in desperation decide the "final days" of the generals has come?

coolbert.

Block.

This is coolbert:

During the Second World War [WW2], the German commanders proved themselves, as mentioned in many previous blog entries, as being adept at creating and commanding, with success, ad hoc units.

In another theatre of that war, [WW2], the British also proved themselves to be masters of the same game, creating effective ad hoc units.

This was in the China-Burma-India [CBI] theatre.

British units, in the early stages of the war, first in Malaya, then in Burma, and up to the border of India [Kohima and Imphal], found the Japanese Army, as was the Soviet Army, to be masters of infiltration tactics.

"infiltration - - (DOD) 1. The movement through or into an area or territory occupied by either friendly or enemy troops or organizations. The movement is made, either by small groups or by individuals, at extended or irregular intervals. When used in connection with the enemy, it infers that contact is avoided."

[movement by stealth is a hallmark of infiltration tactics. The Japanese excelled at this!!]

Infiltration tactics for which the British commanders did not seem to have an answer.

Time and again, British forces, consisting of a variety of units and types of arms and personnel, would find themselves being bypassed by infiltrating Japanese troops. This could occur either when the British were on the offensive or defensive. Often finding themselves fifty or so miles behind Japanese lines, and not EVEN REALIZING IT, British units would be forced to beat a retreat, often in disarray. This DID OCCUR, over and over.

A solution to this problem was not devised until the Royal Air Force [RAF] was able to gain control of the skies over Burma from the Japanese. At that point, aerial resupply of marooned units became possible.

The solution was to tell units to remain in place when bypassed by infiltrating Japanese troops, await aerial resupply, organize themselves into strongpoints for the defensive, and await relief from overland columns. Retreat, which was formerly the ONLY option available, was NO LONGER AN OPTION.

These strongpoints became known as "blocks" or "boxes".

"strong point - - (DOD, NATO) A key point in a defensive position, usually strongly fortified and heavily armed with automatic weapons, around which other positions are grouped for its protection."

[when a strongpoint is established, usually no retreat from such a defensive position is possible without release from higher command. The commander must stand his ground no matter what unless permission from his superior is first obtained!!]

British commanders often had a melange of units and troops at their disposal for defense of the "block".

"Melange - - a mixture often of incongruous elements"

Signallers, headquarters troops, mess waiters, "batmen" [personal valets for officers], muleteers [mules were used extensively in CBI for supply], construction troops [soldiers often having only the most rudimentary knowledge of how to use a rifle], and combat arms units of various sizes and capacities.

These troops were also of various nationalities. British, Gurkha, British Indian Army troops, and local levies [Burmese].




All were thrown together into an AD HOC unit with the mission of defending the "block".

These "blocks" became an excellent example of the verity of warfare that says, "defense is the stronger form of combat". As enunciated by Clausewitz. More can be accomplished with less and easier too by soldiers on the defensive.

The concept of the "block" was successful.

As LONG as aerial resupply WAS possible, the "block" concept worked.

[[aerial resupply was carried out almost exclusively by American Army Air Corps aircraft. This is where "Terry and the Pirates" had their start!!]

Having a strong and imaginative commander also went a long way to guaranteeing success. The senior office in charge of the "block" had to inspire his troops and command in a forceful manner. Holding such an "ad hoc" unit together and having them fight well was NOT EASY.

[having a trained, experienced, well-led combat arms unit available for the commander of the "block" often went a long way to make the defense of the "block" a success.]

Against the Japanese, troops contained with such a "block" came to quickly realize that defeat WAS NOT an option. The Japanese were NOT noted for "kindly" treatment of prisoners. Rather the OPPOSITE. Knowing this, forces within the "block" often, out of necessity, fought with exceptional vigor.

Troops with the "block" WERE able to conduct a successful defense, often causing great casualties among the attacking Japanese!!

DEFENSE does seem to be the "stronger form of combat". The "block" concept seems to say this true.

coolbert.