Why I Don’t Like the UN and Why We Should NOT Get Out

Saw a WorldNetDaily article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39509 which has induced my comments today.

 

Essentially, Larry Klayman is running for the US Senate seat from Florida being vacated by Bob Graham.  Klayman is a Republican and the foundar of JudicalWatch a watchdog organization that keeps tabs on trial lawyers and jurists with regard to business intereses and tort law.

 

It seems that Mr. Klayman has included in his platform the proposition to get the US out of the UN.  This is a bad idea.

 

Don’t get me wrong.  I have no love of the UN.  My feelings stem primarilly from the squandering of ability, talent, treasure, time and goodwill that is rife within the organization which completely betrays the potential for doing that which is right and good that is so ably masked by its administration.  That this would culminate in trying to quash the Global War on Terror at its inception, a policy for which I have clamored since the Marine Baracks in Beiruit were blown up in 1983 was just confirmation that they don’t know what they are doing and have no appreciation for what they could accomplish.

 

There is one simple and overwhelming reason, however, that the US must remain a member and engaged in the UN.  Its not the veto we have in the Security Council either (though that helps).

 

Its real estate.

 

The UN HQ is in NYC.  All those nations send delegations *here* to have their meetings.  Where else can we find such a potentially rich source of foreign intelligence?

 

Think about it; each delegation has a staff–they go to public places and say things they shouldn’t, perhaps a slip or perhaps induced in some manner, each delegation has communcations withtheir sponsor nation–if it can be transmitted it can be intercepted, if it can be encoded it can be decrypted.

 

Mr. Klayman is right; the UN does do stupid things like letting Syria and Cuba chair Human Rights Commissions, but at least they do it here where we can keep an eye on them. 

Advertisements

In the Future (Military and Civilian Contractors on the Battlefield)

An M1A1 crew will consist of three civilian contractors (loader,

gunner and driver) and an Army TC. The TC will keep being frustrated

by his crews’ need to go to chow, the gym, on a convoy to some other

post or into town shopping, but they are civilians and so not

accountable to the TC.

An Infantry Batallion will consist of 1 platoon of Light Infantry

troops to provide “Force Protection” to the 300 civilian contractors,

who will do everything else when they aren’t going to chow, the gym,

on a convoy to some other post or into town shopping. Coronary

failure in Bn CDRs will rise dramatically, no likely cause will be

found.

Add your own….

So, What’s a "Signaleer" and other questions (pt 1)….

Some things you’ll note about this blog:  The blogger has far more interests in life than are probably really healthy and so things will ramble and topics will change with little notice.

 

So, here’s a little glossary of terms that you’ll see with some frequency here:

 

Signaleer:  A member of the US Army Signal Corps

RTO:  A Radio Telephone Operator–  If you used to have the little green plastic Army men growing up, this is the guy with the radio on his back.

RTO Trainer:  1) The guy who teaches the RTOs their job.  2) Me. 

RETRANS:  Retransmission operations–a military term for using communications equipment to extend range or overcome terrain features.  Simply put, a repeater station.

Sparky:  An annoying nickname my Major has for me, but the General now calls me this too, so I guess I’m stuck with it.

Afghanistan:  A landlocked country in Southwest Asia from where I am currently blogging.

NCO:  Non-Commissioned Officer, an enlisted military member usually E-5 or higher (Sergeant in the Army) though some E-4s (Corporals) are also NCOs.  I’m a Sergeant–an NCO.

Redun:  An annoying (to him, I think)  nickname that I gave Specialist (an E-4 that is not an NCO) Miller–shortened form of “Redundant Backup Unit” which is what he is to me.

 

The alert reader will now have been able to make a certain number of conclusions about me from the above.  Stay tuned, dear readers, to see if you’re right.

 

"Intelligence Czar" a Big Mistake

I just read the New York Times story, 9/11 Panel Is Said to Urge New

Post for Intelligence–

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/politics/17panel.html . It says the

the most important recommendation of the commission is the

establishement of a national director of intelligence.

They couldn’t be more wrong. In the first place we already have one.

The Director of Central Intelligence, if you read the job description,

already is what they are proposing. He is, unfortunately, a largely

figurative head of an aglomeration of ad hoc relationships, programs,

divisions and agencies over which he has, and can have, little

control. Creating a new post will only accomplish one thing; you will

have tacked on a redundant and largely impotent office to a structure

of tacked on, redundant and largely impotent offices.

If they want to set up a cabinet-level post to oversee National-level

intelligence, that’s fine. I think such things are primarily

posturing and symbolic; offering no real substance, but that’s not the

problem in this instance.

The problem is in what is lead, not in who is doing the leading or

from where. The DCI or a new Director of National Intelligence (DNI),

still can’t tell the Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security

Secretary, or Attorney General how to run their shops. Until you

solve this organizational problem, you will still have the same

problem.

Otherwise this looks like a federal jobs program in disguise–hiring a

new director and all his “support” staff. I thought I’d been told the

era of big government was over.

Boost the Signal. Squelch the Noise. Information is Power.