|
“Americanny”
A Newsletter for the Canny American
&
Friends of America
American: “of,
in or characteristic of the U.S., its people, etc.”
Canny: “careful
and shrewd in one’s actions and dealings; clever and cautious.”
- Webster’s New World
Dictionary, Third Edition
Americanny is a
newsletter that presents a conservative, satirical view of America’s role in
international affairs, especially in the Far East and Southwestern Asia. The views
expressed here are my own and include the following premises:
1) American leaders are
elected to protect and further the interests of the United States. Our
international policies and activities must therefore place the needs and desires
of the United States above the needs or desires of other nations.
2) No nation is
invincible, not even a “super power”. The rise and fall of the Roman and
British Empires teach us that. Consequently, America must take whatever actions
are necessary to ensure its survival, regardless of world opinion.
3) The world today is
more dangerous than it has ever been. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
proliferate in even the poorest regions. Intermediate range missiles are
easily acquired. A cancer called “terrorism” threatens our very existence.
This is not the time for complacency. We must remain extraordinarily alert, and
have the courage and ability to act in our own self-defense.
This newsletter
actually began a couple of years ago and was intended to analyze political and military
developments in the Far East, particularly the Philippines, through “western”
eyes. Slowly it evolved to include events outside of the Far East, though that
region remains a priority.
The newsletter reaches
about 700 subscribers as of February 2003.
Don’t worry, old
timers, while the name has changed from "Phil-West" to "Americanny," the
newsletter itself remains unchanged. It’s still written by me, and neither
my writing style nor the topics I write about will change as a result of this
name change. I’ll continue to keep and eye on the Philippines and the Far
East, though, as always, I’m willing to tackle happenings in other regions,
also.
And I’ll still address
America’s role in the world with a combination of humor (if you want to call it
that) and frankness. I’ll continue to draw out information from the back pages
of newspapers, trade magazines, and other forgotten sources. And while I’m a
pretty down-to-earth kind of guy, I’m not afraid to speculate and make my
readers scratch their heads from time to time. It’s all part of the fun.
For those of you new to
my newsletter, you have to realize that I only write when I feel there’s
something worth saying. That might be twice a week, once a month, or once every
two months. Your inbox is cluttered up with enough junk. You don’t need me
adding to the pile unnecessarily.
While the newsletter is
over two years ago, this webspage is new, and it will take me a few weeks to give
it a semi-professional look. There is also a slightly modified mirror of
this page at
www.americanny.com .Thanks for your patience while I put the final
touches on all this.
If
you’re not a member, here's a small snippet from a recent article:
|
Well, the big meeting at the U.N. is over. The United States has made
its case that U.N. Inspectors have no chance of finding Iraq’s toys
unless Iraq tells them where the toy boxes are. Which, clearly, Iraq
isn’t going to do. The French delegate basically agreed that the
inspections aren’t working, then added, incomprehensibly, that we could
rectify this failure by doing more inspections.
One wonders if the French delegate, upon finding that the milk in his
refrigerator had expired and turned sour, might not return the carton to
the refrigerator and check it the next day to see if milk’s condition
had improved any.
Actually, the French are suggesting “doubling” or “tripling” the number
of inspectors in Iraq. That would bring the total number of inspectors
up to about 400. In the spirit of diplomacy, the U.S. has offered to
send 200,000 inspectors to the area, in addition to the 400 suggested by
France. The U.S. inspectors would be equipped with everything they
might need to carry out the U.N. mandated inspections, to include
uniforms, nuclear/biological/chemical test kits, radios, helicopters,
and, of course, B-52 bombers.
One can hardly blame the French for believing that war isn’t the
solution. Have you looked at that nation’s history when it comes to
warfare? They, took a hundred years to drive a relatively small
contingent of British forces from their country during the Hundred Years
War, lost the Seven Years War, lost the Franco-Prussian War, lost the
Napoleonic Wars, stalemated during most of World War I, and lasted only
a few days against the Germans in World War II. They were stymied at
the Suez in 1956 and driven from Vietnam shortly thereafter.
In fact, the only French victory that comes to mind occurred when France
helped some rebellious colonies gain independence from the British
during the American revolution. But even that was a bitter-sweet
victory. France had already lost its Canadian territories to the
British, and a few decades later, fell apart during the French
Revolution.
In other words, France is not a country that has had a lot of luck in
the war department. No wonder then that they prefer, rightly or
wrongly, to avoid conflict at all costs. And I say that with all due
respect to our brothers in arms in France, who I am sure are as brave
and competent as any soldiers on Earth. When armies fail, it’s more
often than not the fault of a nation’s government or military leaders,
not the men placed in harm’s way.
China, Russia, and a few other countries have nothing to win by
authorizing war, and nothing to lose by declaring that a peaceful
solution should be found. They have the enviable position of being able
to stand on the sidelines, knowing that if there is a problem, the U.S.
will take care of it. If there’s not a problem, the U.S. will be blamed
for over-reacting. It’s a win-win situation for them.
Philippine President Arroyo, on the other hand, remains a staunch ally
of the U.S., and has given her unequivocal support to President Bush.
It’s a pragmatic decision. The Philippines was being terrorized by the
New Peoples Army and various Muslim fundamentalist groups decades before
the average American could even tell you what ‘terrorism’ was. That
terrorism continues to this day with new players like the notorious Abu
Sayyaf gang. The Philippines is also involved in a dispute with
neighboring countries over fishing rights (one that often comes to
blows) and keeps a cautious eye on China’s growing occupation of islands
not too far from Philippine coastal waters (in fact, the Philippines
claims many of the little islands and reefs that China is building
upon).
In other words, President Arroyo has a firm grasp of the brutal
realities of our modern world. There have been some concerns voiced by
Philippine politicians regarding the deployment of RP troops to support
the U.S. if an invasion of Iraq occurs, but Arroyo says no such
deployment has been requested. Indeed, the United States would almost
certainly prefer that the RP keeps its troops at home, fighting
al-Qa’ida linked Muslim extremist in the southern islands. Just days
ago, Philippine Marines killed an Abu Sayyaf commander and about sixteen
of his men. Five Marines were injured or killed in the confrontation.
While many countries in the world ponder the consequences of war, the
Philippines is already fighting one.
|
If
this sounds like it might be of interest to you, you can join by using the
sign-up below. Needless to say, there's no cost or anything like that, and
you can unsubscribe at any time. Thanks!
|
