Without doubt the most dangerous place on earth right now is the Afgan-Pakistani border. So long as Canadian troops are there, the security and stability of Pakistan is paramount. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea seem tame by way of comparison. Below is a picture of a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter in the area of operations.
Pakistan, U.S.: Dangerous Tensions Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:12PM
Pakistani forces fired at U.S. military helicopters along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the Pentagon said Sept. 25. The border dispute highlights the dangers of the high tensions between Islamabad and Washington — tensions that are likely to get worse before there is any hope that they will get better.
Pakistani forces fired upon U.S. military helicopters along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the Pentagon confirmed Sept. 25. However, a Pentagon spokesman denied Pakistani claims that the helicopters had entered Pakistani airspace. Islamabad later claimed that only “warning shots” were fired and later insisted that only signal flares were fired to warn the helicopters off.
This incident — almost a textbook border dispute, complete with each side claiming it was in the right place in an area where the precise border often is not clear, and subsequent revisions of statements — highlights the dangers of tensions as high as they are between Pakistan and the United States. For Washington, Islamabad’s lack of control over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is providing a safe haven for Taliban and foreign jihadist fighters as well as a vector for arms feeding the Afghan insurgency. For Pakistan, the United States’ increasingly overt and unilateral raids and strikes on Pakistani territory are challenging Islamabad’s sovereignty, and with it the support of its people.
Thus, Pakistan has increasingly threatened to forcefully oppose any further U.S. intrusion, though the only casualty so far has been an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that crashed in the region Sept. 23 — possibly for unrelated technical reasons. Indeed, though often flying well above the range of “trash fire” — small arms and anti-aircraft artillery — UAVs make a good intermediate step for Islamabad to demonstrate its resolve on the issue without firing upon U.S. servicemen. Islamabad cannot hope to garner public support for the fight against its own jihadist insurgency while U.S. forces continue to engage in unilateral strikes in the country.
Meanwhile, unless a Pakistani patrol catches helicopters flying low, the danger from small arms fire is not particularly extreme. Nevertheless, should Islamabad begin to employ more capable air defense weapons, the situation could quickly escalate — though Pakistan’s most capable air defense systems will remain committed to the Indian border. Both sides compound the potential for escalation.
On the Pakistani side, the paramilitary Frontier Corps patrols much of the border. The corps harbors more intense local tribal loyalties — likely making any given patrol more inclined to shoot and more likely to be aggressive in trying to bring down whatever U.S. target they might stumble upon, even if it is only approaching the border. The Frontier Corps is also likely to have individuals with conflicting loyalties — a situation that militants can exploit to deliberately trigger a U.S.-Pakistani clash, which would work to their advantage. The Frontier Corps or other forces in the area also have broad direction from Islamabad — compounded by high profile public statements by senior officials that Pakistan will defend its own territory — that they can interpret as they see fit and act on their own at the tactical level. Moreover, an outpost in Mohmand agency was hit June 11 in a U.S. strike that left 11 Frontier Corps soldiers — including a mid-level officer — dead.
On the U.S. side, rules of engagement stipulate very clearly the right to self defense — generally including preemptive self defense when the individual has a subjective sense of imminent hostile intent. Though more professional and restrained in a tactical sense, U.S. forces are likely to act aggressively to defend themselves once fired upon. In fact, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sept 23 told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that the United Nations Charter allowed the United States to act in self-defense against international terrorists in Pakistan if the government was unable, or unwilling to deal with them. Perceptions and misconceptions in such situations — on both sides — often make the situation all too quick to escalate.
Even though this particular incident may boil down to the innocent firing of signal flares, the situation has all the ingredients for significant escalation while politically and militarily — in a strategic sense — both sides remain in limbo. Pakistan does not have the military capability to establish its writ in FATA on its own without reducing its forces opposite India to what it considers unacceptable levels. The United States is not only in mid-stride during the final weeks of election season, but is facing domestic economic troubles and is still formulating its new strategy for Afghanistan.
In short, should things continue on this path, the situation may well get worse before there is any hope of it getting better.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Without doubt the most dangerous place on earth right now is the Afgan-Pakistani border. So long as Canadian troops are there, the security and stability of Pakistan is paramount. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea seem tame by way of comparison. Below is a picture of a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter in the area of operations.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
I've been having problems recently with my computer, hence no recent posts in the past two weeks. I intend to get it fixed sometime this week so I can get back to regular blogging. In the meantime, I offer you my humble assessment of the question of illegal immigration.
The Bone-Headed Assumptions of the Far Left
The likes of the ACLU drive me insane. The foundation these lefties rest on is that America is an inherently racist nation and that Americans are mean-spirited. This for not allowing Mexicans to flow across their southern border. Are Americans such horrible lot for depriving illegals of their freedom and a right to make a living? Absolutely not! Here are three reasons why the security of international borders in free nations is of utmost importance.
Open Borders Enables Criminal Activity
In the rose-colored world that leftists occupy, it is inconceivable that some would arrive here with less than noble intentions. The so-called freedom that these malcontents seek isn't a new life, it's often to flee a record or to proliferate their criminal activities. Commodities such as drugs, firearms and alcohol are part of the international trade that crosses our borders each day. And that's just the legal stuff! Rum runners, cocaine smugglers and the sale of military style weapons to thugs are mixed in with the legal movement of goods. Is it racist to suggest that this trade is one that ought to be rigourously monitored and defeated? The answer is clearly no.
Open Borders Enable the Sex Trade
Another dirty little secret the defenders of open borders won't tell you. I would bet with an absolute certainty that a significant number of strippers, massage parlour attendants, escorts and street prostitutes have arrived in the country illegally. Naive women from Asia or Eastern Europe are told they'll be working with children - a nanny for instance - only to be given the cruel 'bait and switch' treatment as soon as they arrive. I'm not talking about lands far away, I'm talking about this going in Brampton and Mississauga! So long as these 'erotic dancers' are young enough (some under the age of 18) and reasonably good-looking she's put to work - no questions asked. Is it mean-spirited to put this to a halt?
Open Borders Enable Human Trafficking
Whereas the sex trade exploits young women in particular, human trafficking is much broader in its scope. Stories of illegal construction workers in the 905 suburbs come to mind. What happens to these workers if they suffer a significant injury on the job? How does a worker refuse dangerous work when they aren't properly qualified or sufficiently equipped to do? Under normal circumstances, labor laws protect the worker from these dangers. In the case of illegals, they have no such protection and are completely vulnerable to predatory employers. Sweatshop owners have the illegal at their mercy with no recourse or appeal. No wonder so many business owners love unsecure borders!
Who's the Open Targets Then?
We are. So are those who come here thinking the streets are paved with gold. Open borders enable human misery, period. Of course, there's money to be made in all this misery. A lot of it. Where there's money, there's competition. Where there's competition, there usually is violence and truly reprehensible behaviour that no freedom-loving society should tolerate. The only thing we are depriving of anybody is dangerous and risky consequences. Americans are not mean-spirited. If anything, they are generous and trusting to a fault. So forgive me if I don't buy the leftist rhetoric on illegal immigration. Will they take heed of my sage advice? Not on your life.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
This is the final part of a trilogy on relationships. Though currently single myself, I feel blessed to share some Godly wisdom when it comes to human relationships. For earlier reference, I strongly suggest you read these two posts before continuing:
The Most Beautiful Woman in the World
The Most Interesting Man in the World
Two Problems: Not Enough or Too Much
What exactly do I mean by this? As I said before, the quickest way to scuttle a courtship is to enforce a rigid and unforgiving equality. It's balance, not 'equality' that men and women seek.
Not Enough! Not Enough!!
Alas men, this happens in the majority instance. Not flattering I know, but we men must face up to reality. Despite the feminist caterwauling that you hear, women want a guy that's confident and assured. A weak man is one that willfully abdicates his responsibilities leaving a frustrated woman in his wake. You don't have to be the strong and silent Clint Eastwood type you see in the movies. Show backbone and be a man of principles and have a stout heart. A weak and indecisive male forces her to be the decision maker. Thus it emasculates him further and the vicious cycle trends downwards. Which leads me to my next point.
Too Much: The Oprah Winfrey Scenario
I feel for Steadman Graham. No man should tolerate such humiliation from a woman. Again, the key word here is balance! Is Oprah trying to be both the man and the woman in the relationship? No wonder Mr. Graham feels overwhelmed! While this is a minority scenario, sadly I see this trending upward. There's nothing wrong with a woman who wishes to take the lead from time to time. Some men may even prefer such a strong women! However, the woman should not lead all the time, every time. Let him have the reigns once in a while! You won't regret it.
Too Much (Part Two): The Marginalized Woman
Guys, listen to me. Make sure that she is fully included in the decision making process. I cannot stress this point enough. The imbalance here is not that the male is not exercising leadership. Indeed, he is exercising too much! Get rid of the 'Little Hitler' syndrome and your woman will be eternally grateful. The woman must be given a place as an equal partner at the table. She may (or may not) defer the decision to her partner, but by making sure she gets a full say - not a partial one - will make her feel as a treasured partner. Her feminine insight is to be sought after and valued. A man should lead a woman by the most delicate of strings, not a heavy chain.
Word to the Wise to Those Who Advance Same-Sex Relationships
Am I about to deliver a homophobic rant? Absolutely not! However, I'd be remiss if I didn't include this. I have often used the term 'balance' to describe the perfect relationship. The problem of a gay marriage is this: It is in a state of permanent and entrenched imbalance. Furthermore, there is no antidote to this problem. Though the courts have given gays the legal right to marry, this doesn't mean that it's right nor does it indicate long-term success. A man cannot complement a man and a woman cannot complement a woman. These are the hard facts, not hate speech! Reality has such a horrible habit of offending delicate secular-progressive sensibilities!
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
I can think of no more frightening phrase uttered in a time of crisis. With thanks to Bush's adventurism we now have a situation where the American military is spread a mile wide and an inch thick. The worst part is everybody - that being the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Saudis, and al-Qaida - know it. Whoever wins the White House is sure to have their resolve tested in 2009 at a time and place of our enemies choosing.
The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy
September 2, 2008
By George Friedman
The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco. The situation on Aug. 7, 2008, was as follows:
The war in Iraq was moving toward an acceptable but not optimal solution. The government in Baghdad was not pro-American, but neither was it an Iranian puppet, and that was the best that could be hoped for. The United States anticipated pulling out troops, but not in a disorderly fashion.
The war in Afghanistan was deteriorating for the United States and NATO forces. The Taliban was increasingly effective, and large areas of the country were falling to its control. Force in Afghanistan was insufficient, and any troops withdrawn from Iraq would have to be deployed to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation. Political conditions in neighboring Pakistan were deteriorating, and that deterioration inevitably affected Afghanistan.
The United States had been locked in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, demanding that Tehran halt enrichment of uranium or face U.S. action. The United States had assembled a group of six countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) that agreed with the U.S. goal, was engaged in negotiations with Iran, and had agreed at some point to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. The United States was also leaking stories about impending air attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States if Tehran didn’t abandon its enrichment program. The United States had the implicit agreement of the group of six not to sell arms to Tehran, creating a real sense of isolation in Iran.
In short, the United States remained heavily committed to a region stretching from Iraq to Pakistan, with main force committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of commitments to Pakistan (and above all to Iran) on the table. U.S. ground forces were stretched to the limit, and U.S. airpower, naval and land-based forces had to stand by for the possibility of an air campaign in Iran — regardless of whether the U.S. planned an attack, since the credibility of a bluff depended on the availability of force.
The situation in this region actually was improving, but the United States had to remain committed there. It was therefore no accident that the Russians invaded Georgia on Aug. 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Forgetting the details of who did what to whom, the United States had created a massive window of opportunity for the Russians: For the foreseeable future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain them in extended combat. Moreover, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan, where Moscow’s influence with some factions remains substantial. The United States needed the Russians and couldn’t block the Russians. Therefore, the Russians inevitably chose this moment to strike.
On Sunday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):
First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.
Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.
Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”
The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia’s behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary.
The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia’s “special interests.”
Thus, the Georgian conflict was not an isolated event — rather, Medvedev is saying that Russia is engaged in a general redefinition of the regional and global system. Locally, it would not be correct to say that Russia is trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or the Russian empire. It would be correct to say that Russia is creating a new structure of relations in the geography of its predecessors, with a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center. Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy. These are ambitious goals, to say the least. But the Russians believe that the United States is off balance in the Islamic world and that there is an opportunity here, if they move quickly, to create a new reality before the United States is ready to respond. Europe has neither the military weight nor the will to actively resist Russia. Moreover, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies over the coming years, and Russia can survive without selling it to them far better than the Europeans can survive without buying it. The Europeans are not a substantial factor in the equation, nor are they likely to become substantial.
This leaves the United States in an extremely difficult strategic position. The United States opposed the Soviet Union after 1945 not only for ideological reasons but also for geopolitical ones. If the Soviet Union had broken out of its encirclement and dominated all of Europe, the total economic power at its disposal, coupled with its population, would have allowed the Soviets to construct a navy that could challenge U.S. maritime hegemony and put the continental United States in jeopardy. It was U.S. policy during World Wars I and II and the Cold War to act militarily to prevent any power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. For the United States, this was the most important task throughout the 20th century.
The U.S.-jihadist war was waged in a strategic framework that assumed that the question of hegemony over Eurasia was closed. Germany’s defeat in World War II and the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War meant that there was no claimant to Eurasia, and the United States was free to focus on what appeared to be the current priority — the defeat of radical Islamism. It appeared that the main threat to this strategy was the patience of the American public, not an attempt to resurrect a major Eurasian power.
The United States now faces a massive strategic dilemma, and it has limited military options against the Russians. It could choose a naval option, in which it would block the four Russian maritime outlets, the Sea of Japan and the Black, Baltic and Barents seas. The United States has ample military force with which to do this and could potentially do so without allied cooperation, which it would lack. It is extremely unlikely that the NATO council would unanimously support a blockade of Russia, which would be an act of war.
But while a blockade like this would certainly hurt the Russians, Russia is ultimately a land power. It is also capable of shipping and importing through third parties, meaning it could potentially acquire and ship key goods through European or Turkish ports (or Iranian ports, for that matter). The blockade option is thus more attractive on first glance than on deeper analysis.
More important, any overt U.S. action against Russia would result in counteractions. During the Cold War, the Soviets attacked American global interest not by sending Soviet troops, but by supporting regimes and factions with weapons and economic aid. Vietnam was the classic example: The Russians tied down 500,000 U.S. troops without placing major Russian forces at risk. Throughout the world, the Soviets implemented programs of subversion and aid to friendly regimes, forcing the United States either to accept pro-Soviet regimes, as with Cuba, or fight them at disproportionate cost.
In the present situation, the Russian response would strike at the heart of American strategy in the Islamic world. In the long run, the Russians have little interest in strengthening the Islamic world — but for the moment, they have substantial interest in maintaining American imbalance and sapping U.S. forces. The Russians have a long history of supporting Middle Eastern regimes with weapons shipments, and it is no accident that the first world leader they met with after invading Georgia was Syrian President Bashar al Assad. This was a clear signal that if the U.S. responded aggressively to Russia’s actions in Georgia, Moscow would ship a range of weapons to Syria — and far worse, to Iran. Indeed, Russia could conceivably send weapons to factions in Iraq that do not support the current regime, as well as to groups like Hezbollah. Moscow also could encourage the Iranians to withdraw their support for the Iraqi government and plunge Iraq back into conflict. Finally, Russia could ship weapons to the Taliban and work to further destabilize Pakistan.
At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not. Not only does the U.S. commitment of ground forces in the Islamic world leave the United States without strategic reserve, but the political arrangements under which these troops operate make them highly vulnerable to Russian manipulation — with few satisfactory U.S. counters.
The U.S. government is trying to think through how it can maintain its commitment in the Islamic world and resist the Russian reassertion of hegemony in the former Soviet Union. If the United States could very rapidly win its wars in the region, this would be possible. But the Russians are in a position to prolong these wars, and even without such agitation, the American ability to close off the conflicts is severely limited. The United States could massively increase the size of its army and make deployments into the Baltics, Ukraine and Central Asia to thwart Russian plans, but it would take years to build up these forces and the active cooperation of Europe to deploy them. Logistically, European support would be essential — but the Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, have no appetite for this war. Expanding the U.S. Army is necessary, but it does not affect the current strategic reality.
This logistical issue might be manageable, but the real heart of this problem is not merely the deployment of U.S. forces in the Islamic world — it is the Russians’ ability to use weapons sales and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically. With active Russian hostility added to the current reality, the strategic situation in the Islamic world could rapidly spin out of control.
The United States is therefore trapped by its commitment to the Islamic world. It does not have sufficient forces to block Russian hegemony in the former Soviet Union, and if it tries to block the Russians with naval or air forces, it faces a dangerous riposte from the Russians in the Islamic world. If it does nothing, it creates a strategic threat that potentially towers over the threat in the Islamic world.
The United States now has to make a fundamental strategic decision. If it remains committed to its current strategy, it cannot respond to the Russians. If it does not respond to the Russians for five or 10 years, the world will look very much like it did from 1945 to 1992. There will be another Cold War at the very least, with a peer power much poorer than the United States but prepared to devote huge amounts of money to national defense.
Four Broad U.S. Options
Attempt to make a settlement with Iran that would guarantee the neutral stability of Iraq and permit the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Iran is the key here. The Iranians might also mistrust a re-emergent Russia, and while Tehran might be tempted to work with the Russians against the Americans, Iran might consider an arrangement with the United States — particularly if the United States refocuses its attentions elsewhere. On the upside, this would free the U.S. from Iraq. On the downside, the Iranians might not want —or honor — such a deal.
Enter into negotiations with the Russians, granting them the sphere of influence they want in the former Soviet Union in return for guarantees not to project Russian power into Europe proper. The Russians will be busy consolidating their position for years, giving the U.S. time to re-energize NATO. On the upside, this would free the United States to continue its war in the Islamic world. On the downside, it would create a framework for the re-emergence of a powerful Russian empire that would be as difficult to contain as the Soviet Union.
Refuse to engage the Russians and leave the problem to the Europeans. On the upside, this would allow the United States to continue war in the Islamic world and force the Europeans to act. On the downside, the Europeans are too divided, dependent on Russia and dispirited to resist the Russians. This strategy could speed up Russia’s re-emergence.
Rapidly disengage from Iraq, leaving a residual force there and in Afghanistan. The upside is that this creates a reserve force to reinforce the Baltics and Ukraine that might restrain Russia in the former Soviet Union. The downside is that it would create chaos in the Islamic world, threatening regimes that have sided with the United States and potentially reviving effective intercontinental terrorism. The trade-off is between a hegemonic threat from Eurasia and instability and a terror threat from the Islamic world.
We are pointing to very stark strategic choices. Continuing the war in the Islamic world has a much higher cost now than it did when it began, and Russia potentially poses a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world does. What might have been a rational policy in 2001 or 2003 has now turned into a very dangerous enterprise, because a hostile major power now has the option of making the U.S. position in the Middle East enormously more difficult.
If a U.S. settlement with Iran is impossible, and a diplomatic solution with the Russians that would keep them from taking a hegemonic position in the former Soviet Union cannot be reached, then the United States must consider rapidly abandoning its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redeploying its forces to block Russian expansion. The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War was far graver than the threat posed now by the fragmented Islamic world. In the end, the nations there will cancel each other out, and militant organizations will be something the United States simply has to deal with. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but the clock appears to have run out on the American war in the Islamic world.
We do not expect the United States to take this option. It is difficult to abandon a conflict that has gone on this long when it is not yet crystal clear that the Russians will actually be a threat later. (It is far easier for an analyst to make such suggestions than it is for a president to act on them.) Instead, the United States will attempt to bridge the Russian situation with gestures and half measures.
Nevertheless, American national strategy is in crisis. The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two. Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does. It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat. But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.
We expect no immediate change in American strategic deployments — and we expect this to be regretted later. However, given U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to the Caucasus region, now would be the time to see some movement in U.S. foreign policy. If Cheney isn’t going to be talking to the Russians, he needs to be talking to the Iranians. Otherwise, he will be writing checks in the region that the U.S. is in no position to cash.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to Stratfor.com
Monday, September 01, 2008
I was musing the other day about my childhood. In particular, I was thinking about the various playground equipment in use at recess at my primary school. I drove by the other day and it was gone! Truth be told, it had been gone for years. That's what got me started. In my day, playing on these old wooden contraptions involved some kind of risk. Sure, you got bumps and bruises and even a few nasty scrapes. Heck, even some blood may have been spilled! Did that deter us? NO! We were bandaged up, told to watch out for ourselves (and each other) and lo and behold, we were out there THE VERY NEXT DAY! While the girls were playing their silly games, us boys would be smacking each other around, wrestling and rolling around in the grass making fools of ourselves. In wintertime, tossing the occasional snowball at a friend (or a rival) was never cause for suspension. It was winter in Canada and you played the hand that the weather dealt you. Recess would end after the requisite fifteen minutes and we'd be back in our classrooms to attend to our studies. Life was good, even if wasn't perfect.
The Infantilization of Adults
Fast forward to the future and it doesn't look so pretty now, does it? Getting hit with a snowball, falling and scraping your knee, getting into the occasional scrap is now a major event. I'm not talking about kids, I'm talking about adults! In my day, it was not how many times we fell, it was how many times we got back up. Now, an army of psychologists has to be dispatched whenever somebody experiences a setback. Where has our spine and testicular fortitude gone?
Pain Endlessly Deferred Equals A Collapsed Worldview in Adulthood
Why this rigid insistence on a smothering type of protection? What is the prevailing false worldview being taught today? Four points come to mind:
1) Belief in the Goodness of Man: Yet the Bible is clear this is not the case. Every single one of us has fallen short of perfection. A child growing up with this belief is going to inevitably have their faith shattered. We can teach this Biblical truth to our kids now or they can learn it for themselves later on. Either way, the 'goodness of Man' is going to be exposed for the myth it always was. Better a cushioned blow now than a hard fall later!
2) Belief in Our Government: The government doesn't care about you. What it cares about is revenue streams (aka tax pipelines), be it making new ones or enlarging old ones. Whether those revenues is legal or illegal, whether they be ethical or unethical, the government simply wants its cut. This simple lesson in civics will help greatly in the formation of a young person's political beliefs. I wish somebody would've explained this to me earlier. I could've bypassed my radical years at McMaster altogether.
3) Belief in Our Legal System: You're kidding me right? No wonder so many politicians come from a legal background. They all share the same perverse ideology! The law is not concerned about upholding righteousness. Rather, it's about protecting double standards and punishing enemies. The whole system is driven by self-interest and false idols. Of course the law favors the rich over the poor as it does the white man over the black man. The world does not need more lawyers. It needs godly people who will uphold the Bible as the supreme authority.
4) Belief in a Bright Shining Future: It isn't going to happen. Unless there be genuine repentence before God on a mass scale we are basically screwed. Our governments are too short-sighted and mired in self-interest to care about any long-term planning for the next generation. Prophecy lays bare the stark reality that Man faces prior to Jesus' arrival. We revile Godly instruction which therefore ultimately dooms us. Millions of adults believe that Obama will save us. Not only will this not occur (should he be elected), it is entirely possible the rate of decay will actually increase! And if Obama is not elected, what radicals out there will exploit this defeat for their own gain? Either way, it doesn't look good. McCain is my man but I do so with relatively low expectations.
The Bottom Line
There's nothing wrong with having a child-like wonder of the universe. But the continued infantilization of adults combined with the feminization of men is destroying our way of life from within. God provides for those that love Him, even whilst under great persecution. Letting our young people know the truth of God's word and the reality of this fallen world is the greatest gift we can give them. Let us not fail in this important endeavour.