War

Toy Warz: Monster High and Team Fortress 2

Art, Photography, Toy Warz, ,

Every time I spend time in Michigan I pull out a bunch of toys from the basement and mix up them up with current toys. Over the last trip I focused on Monster High, mainly because the Scarah Screams action figure has a lot of elements reminiscent of the Matrix, and of course Monster High dolls have articulating arms and wrists, making them much easier to hold weapons than Barbie dolls. In addition, I found these awesome figures from what seems to be an excellent video game called Team Fortress 2. I was mainly interested in the weapons and picked up a flamethrower and mini-gun figure for their armaments.

Given their size, the mini Star Wars Hoth battle play set seemed like a nice landscape element to work with. In Photoshop I started to experiment with layering options found in open museum collections, which I found through the OpenGLAM website. Additionally, I found some archives of World War I images, which were rather low resolution but still worked well for compositing. The Toy Warz series now includes these key elements of children’s toys, war and art all in one project. The inclusion of realistic weapons from Monkey Depot to further blur the line between toys and realistic war images of aggression.

More of the Toy Warz series can be found on Flickr:

The B TeamPatrolCosmic Flame of ResistancePoems for the SavedWater Attack

Bratz War Images

Bratz, , ,

On my last trip back to Detroit I marched with the Nain Rouge, and then had a little buying madness toy-spree at Toys R Us. I also picked up a Cleo de Nile doll at Meijer one night after playing trivia at a bar during some low-level Thundersnow. Anyways, I then raided the toy chest that is the basement at my parent’s place and put together some small war sets with the various objects/subjects/toys. I took what I had to work with, that included a super old Estes model rocket, some plastic army soldiers, a landscape, a .50 cal sniper rifle from a G.I.Joe, some tanks, and, I guess that was about it. This is sort of an ongoing project. Every time I head back to Michigan I find another collection of toys to use, I setup a small stage, do some shot arrangements, and then bring the images back to Switzerland for post-processing in Photoshop. In these images I’ve added a lot of overlays from Rome, Zurich, Tokyo, and Detroit. Images of concrete and walls were added as well to texture the images, and the odd-sun flare is thrown in as well when needed. I’ve since picked up a copy of Strata Foto 3D, and am investigating the possibility of creating 3D models of the Bratz, Cleo de Nile, and various toys, and doing the images or a short movie all in the computer, but I need to learn me some 3D skillz first.

Anyways…enjoy…Bratz War

How the Afghan War is being Repeated in Iraq

Politics, , ,

Previously on an American Peyote Scribble:

Why post-WWII Germany is not 2007 Iraq
Iraq the Foolishness of Imitating post-WWII Germany
How the US Ignores History and Invites Disaster in Iraq

Now: How the Afghan War is being Repeated in Iraq – and how Iran is the New CIA

First, a question, is the presence of US troops in Iraq:

a) Helping Iraq
b) A good thing for the US
c) Playing into the hands of Iran

Some of the main puzzle pieces of the Middle East include Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Hezbollah, the US, and the CIA.

In 2007, the US is seen as the occupying power in a disorganized county (Iraq) with battling religious and political factions.  The US army is fighting the second most advanced guerrilla army ever known (the Iraqi Insurgency).

I say the second because I haven’t heard any reports of the insurgents using laser guided smart weapons to take down US helicopter gunships.  The Afghans were able take out the Soviet Hinds with CIA-designed and manufactured shoulder launched missiles and coordinate attacks via satellite communications.

But how is Iran playing the role of the CIA?

Basically, Iran is doing in 2007 to the US (using Iraq) what the US did to Russia (using Afghanistan) during the 1980’s.

If Iran pumps funding, weapons, and training into Hezbollah and the Iraq insurgency, the Cold War between the US and Iran can be waged on the Iraqi battlefield just as the US fought the USSR on the Afghanistan chess board.  The Iranian Government can bleed the US without the treat of nuclear retaliation.  The US can’t really do anything because currently there are no obvious links that in International Community would believe, which would support overt military action against Iran.

The official reply to such an idea from Iran is that, they want a stable Iraq, therefore, why would they add to instability in Iraq by aiding insurgent operations?  It’s true, Iran does want a stable neighbor.  But like all countries, Iran wants to be the stronger neighbor.  In particular, a neighbor with which Iran fought a decade-long war.  Iran wants a politically stable Iraq.  But Iran would rather have an unstable disorganized Iraq than an organized, stable neighbor with a US-backed military – they already have one of those in the form of Israel.

The US and Iran have been true political enemies ever since the US-backed Shahs was kicked out by the Iranian revolutionists in the 1979 Revolution.  The two countries can’t really engage one another in combat for many of the same reasons that the US didn’t engage the USSR – and that Israel currently can’t invade Iran.

Why mention the connection to Israel vs. Hezbollah?  What does that confrontation have to do with the US and Iran?

Iran can fight Israel using Hezbollah.  Hezbollah isn’t a country, it’s a political-terror organization.  As such, it doesn’t have a central nerve that an army can take out.  So, if Iran backs Hezbollah and Hezbollah uses that backing to attack Israel, Israel can’t just go and invade Iran.

The last time Israel launched an offensive against Hezbollah it didn’t result in anything but wasted resources and lives.  Hezbollah captured some Israeli soldiers so the Israeli army went in full force.  Hezbollah shot rockets into the cities while Israeli munitions pummeled the civilians that Hezbollah hid behind.

Both sides claimed victory.  Both sides gained nothing.

It’s a sure thing that nothing is to be gained from an all-out US-Iran war,  just as nothing has been gained during the Israeli-Hezbollah confrontations.  Iran would no-doubt ultimately loose against the full air and land powers of the US and Israel (who would join the attack), and in the end there’d be a bombed-out Iran which would need to be rebuilt, and another generation of religious warriors would cement their hate for the US and fill the power vacuum after the smoke cleared.

What purpose does such a scenario serve?

So to recap, what’s the ground situation in Iraq now?  The official government is backed by the US (not the USSR), battling an insurgency which is probably at least in part funded and organized by Iran (not the CIA).

Does post-WWII Germany have anything to do with 2007 Iraq?

Does the Soviet-Afghan War have some lessons for Iran vs. Israel vs. Hezbollah vs. the US?

See how History works?

What half-baked gutter-headed student of military history sitting in Washington D.C. didn’t see this coming?

Why did the US government allow such a logical progression of events to occur?

Why is the US military in the vulnerable position of trying to govern Iraq?

Why did the US get into this situation?  What was the point of the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?  What would be the point of a US-Iran War?

As I see it, the goal of past and current wars of this type in Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Middle East is not about land control, oil, or the traditional sense of Victory (as in World War II).

The goal (from the US standpoint) is the establishment of stable people-lead governments with ideals of economic prosperity, who make positive contributions to the global existence of humanity.

This sort of sounds like a nice goal.  However, War: a tool of destruction, is not capable of building anything – least of all the stable economy of a country.  The people have to do that.

Political change must be primarily initiated and established by the people of the country – not by artificial outside influences.  No self-respecting Iranian wants a US invasion in the name of democracy.  That’s just a fact.  No Iranian citizen wants a US occupation of their country.  Nothing positive will be gained from a US invasion of Iran.

The US, Vietnam and China are excellent examples.  The artificial governments of the US (England), Vietnam (US), and China (Japan), were kicked out by the people of those sovereign nations.  Now the US, Vietnam and China are politically and economically stable (more or less) – productive countries contributing to the global stage.  In time, both Vietnam and China will most likely transfer to democratic models of governance, just like Iran will – if given time.

We can do better than the current situation in Iraq.  We owe it not only to those who have died but to the children of those who will survive and define the course of Iraq and the Middle East in 5, 10, 20, and 50 years from now.

How the US Ignores History and Invites Disaster in Iraq

Politics, , ,

The Prelude:

Why post-WWII Germany is not 2007 Iraq

Iraq the Foolishness of Imitating post-WWII Germany

The only logical analogy to be made for the current Iraq War – if one needs to be made, is the past war between the US and the Soviet Union.  One of the main battles of the US-USSR policy of confrontation was the Afghanistan War, a component of the Cold War – and officially fought between the Soviet army and the Afghan rebels.

The Soviet War in Afghanistan was used as the the surrogate battlefield for the Cold War between the US and USSR.  The US couldn’t engage the Soviet Union directly during the Cold War because, aside from having no real reason to, it would have resulted in a Nuclear Holocaust.  So the CIA was used to organize and execute the second really overt battle of the Cold War using US and Saudi money with Pakistan acting as the logistical distributer of weapons to the Afghan Rebels – who thanked Allah for the guns, not realizing it was the US and the CIA who enabled their victory over the Soviet army.

The US backed the Afghans by pumping money into the Jihad against the Russians.  This was largely enabled and orchestrated by Congressman Charlie Wilson.  Wilson knew the score in Vietnam concerning the situation of the Soviets pumping money into the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) to defeat the American and South Vietnamese forces.  Soviet weapons and training helped the NVA over-throw the US-backed South Vietnamese government.

In Afghanistan, Wilson wanted to help the Afghan rebels, but he also wanted bleed the Russian Army in Afghanistan, just like the Russians had bled the US Army in Vietnam.

In Vietnam the Soviet Union was able to wage war on the US military (without the threat of nuclear retaliation) via the NVA.  The difference is that the NVA knew this.  They knew where the guns were coming from, while many Afghans believed that their victory was the work of Allah – and maybe it was, but then you might need to accept the notion that Allah was/is working with the US, not a popular way of thinking.

In the Afghan War weapons distribution channels and training were handled by Pakistani Intelligence (ISI).  After the Soviet defeat and withdrawal Afghanistan was left to rebuild on its own.  Since the US never officially overtly directly supported the Afghan War, there was no established responsibility to stay for the rebuilding effort.  The Soviet Union was defeated, the war was over, and US attention turned to other matters.

After the Soviet withdrawal Afghanistan fell into chaos.  War-lords filled the power vacuum, ending in a country filled with Religious warriors with no one to fight and the most technologically advanced leaderless guerilla army the world has ever known.

What does the Afghanistan War have to do with the Iraq War?  Different countries, different armies, different political leaders, what’s the connection?

Jump to 2007

Just exchange a few puzzle pieces on the geo-political chess board.

To make the connection to the current Iraq War, all you have to do is move the geographic location, exchange the USSR and the US – Iraq becomes Afghanistan, and then Iran plays the role of the CIA (a similar game was played during the Vietnam War).

Coming up Next:

How the Afghan War is being Repeated in Iraq – and how Iran is the New CIA

Iraq the Foolishness of Imitating post-WWII Germany

Politics, , ,

Iraq 2007 is not post-WWII Germany

Why does following the model of post-WWII Germany not help the rebuilding effort in current-day Iraq?  What about US troop levels, stabilization, and rebuilding?

After the fall of the Nazi Regime, the main players of the Original Coalition of the Willing: England, the US and the USSR, who had pulled together to defeat the Nazi Regime – ensured the stability needed for Germany and other European countries to rebuild.  For Germany, rebuilding required the input of funding and resources, which could be distributed without fighting an insurgency or negotiating internal ethnic tensions.  There was the occasional action by the Nazi Werwolf units, but the vast amount of troops from England, the US, and Russia more or less kept the country stable.

Iraq-2007 is so unstable that rebuilding can’t even start yet.  Iraq is a menagerie of different city-level battles without defined enemy armies and milestones for victory.  If a town is taken by insurgent armies, it can be retaken by coalition forces, but retaken again by a new insurgent army the very next month (after the US forces move out).

I don’t think that the insurgents can be mentally beaten the way the German and Japanese armies were defeated.  Those armies were commanded by Hitler and the Japanese Emperor respectively, while the insurgents are not fighting under one specific destructible entity.

Should the US troop levels of post-WWII Germany be used as an indication of a successful military strategy in current-day Iraq?

Why were a number of US military bases built in Germany after WWII?  To ensure stability and rebuild the country?  Was this the only reason?  Well, maybe also because those military bases were the first line of defense against a Soviet expansion across Europe.  Such an expansion would have included the traditional infantry-Army-Air Force attack and the US Army and Air Force bases were in place to repel such aggression from beyond the Iron Curtain.

Pumping more money into Iraq and sustaining troop levels is pointless without a real strategy.  Using the analogy of post-WWII to validate the current US strategy in Iraq will not lead to the stabilization of the county or of the region – which was the only real reason the war was fought in the first place.  A similar strategy won’t work because the facts and events surrounding the US occupation of Iraq are very different from the US occupation of Germany.

Oh, well – I mean, the US could build Army bases to prevent an invasion from Iran.  That sounds logical, no?

Thinking outside the political box is required to fix Iraq-2007, because simply falling back on old success stories without considering the differences to the current situation is not going to lead to a solution.

So if lessons don’t exist in the rebuilding of post-WWII Germany, where does one look to for lessons on how the current Iraq War can be ended?

First, in my view, you need to consider the lessons of the US-USSR Cold War and the battle field of Afghanistan.

Coming up Next:

A bed-time story of how the US is Ignoring History and Inviting Disaster in Iraq