Peter Harris > Recent Status Updates

China:
Zakaria seems to be wrapping up his analysis with the coming revolution involving China and the US. While he says China wants to be benevolent in it’s leadership, it has created problems like ownership of the neighboring sea lanes, or arguing with India and Australia. Zakaria says China has a bad problem of being relied upon for loans by other countries but then requiring backbreaking interest repayments.

Something useful for today:
The book is talking about either letting technology drive the economy or have some form of government control. Zakaria says that was Hoover’s mistake and it took FDR’s creative government control to correct the economy. If we are experiencing a wave of technological revolution again, maybe we could learn from this time in history.

Good and bad revolutions:
The overwhelming theme of the French Revolution gone wrong was violence.The theme of the Dutch and Industrial Revolutions was Parliamentary democracy in which all voices were heard and represented.I would like to comment about Zakaria’s argument for the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.He talks about the the steam powered pump,before that was the Cotton Gin of Eli Whitney in the US

Critical of Venice and Austria and Spain:
Zakaria criticizes Venice because you had to be born into power. He defends the Protestant reformation in Austria and comes down on Spain as being money hungry during a time of change. With the Netherlands, Zakaria seems to really like the decentralization of power that he says was created by it’s geography. He says the Protestant uprising was fueled by the printing press

Left versus Right:
Zakaria makes the case that the left makes a group advocating change and the right makes up a group adhering the stay on course attitude. He is going to delve into past revolutions and use them as a model to predict future revolutions. I don’t know why he credits parliament without mentioning anything about the senate of the Roman republic. Aren’t we talking about a democratic legislative body?

How good was he?
I thought for sure he would end up winning the gold medal in the Olympics. But, when I checked the times, he was actually 7 seconds behind world record time in the 1 mile. Even though I thought he was going to dominate, it was a huge accomplishment for him to make the Olympics team.

We are all still alive:
Just about the time he decides on a specific college , he discovers his real parents are still alive. He goes back to Africa and celebrates with all the people of the village. Things are going well for a kid who almost died at the age of six.

A lucky break?
He gets himself selected to be in a group of kids(17 years old), who basically get adopted by, in his case, wealthy Americans living in Syracuse, New York. He spent 6 months in Nairobi getting schooled on being American and the first thing he does when he gets to Syracuse is go for a long run.

Quite a story:
Lopez Lomong is a very young African kid from South Sudan who suddenly finds himself in a life or death struggle for about 1 month. He gets saved by 3 teenagers who he never sees again. They all run for about 70 miles to the border with Kenya. From there, he gets taken to the refugee camp: Kakuma. He stays at this camp for apparently the next 10 years. During the struggle he causes damage to his legs.

Arafat, Israel, and the Gaza Strip:
From the end of the reading,the author says Arafat wanted a Palestinian nation and wanted to model it after South Vietnam.The author says he was unsuccessful because he refused to engage in peaceful negotiations and instead always chose the path of the gun.It’s hard to believe the struggles for 40 years 1965-2004,to create a Palestinian state. Lesson: terrorism doesn’t work

Early Vietnam (1954):
After the French were defeated, a guy named Edward Lansdale moved into South Vietnam with the intent of using unconventional tactics to strengthen the south. The author says that when Lansdale left circa 1957, he had been largely successful. South Vietnam was stable and had what was supposed to have been a free election. Although Diem would have won, cheating was suspected.

Mao Zedong and Chang Kai Shek:
It was the Nationalist backed by the USA versus the Communists backed by the Soviet Union. The Author says Chaing started the Civil War, but when Chaing failed to capture Manchuria, the USA’s Marshal told them to ceasefire. Probably during at least 4 instances the author brings up Mao guerrilla skills. There are actually many photos of Mao living in caves and off the land.

Discussions on success:
The author puts forth arguments about the failures of special forces and the argument whether or not needed,if the missions end in failure.I’m reminded of 1980 and the failure to rescue some 90 hostages in Iran.Carter had to do something and it appears to have failed because of engineering miscalculations instead of ranger or special forces mistakes.The Bin Laden mission was a success.

Special Forces:
The author makes the distinction that guerrillas and special forces are not one and the same. It’s the support given to special forces that guerrillas don’t have.Although, I think it true that special forces and rangers were created to fight fire with fire. I’m pretty sure the colonists realized the nomadic and, knowing the land, abilities of the natives and created the Rangers to do the same

Being a terrorist, good or bad?
I think the author says it must be addressed in case by case manner.The only thing statistics have proven is that terrorists are always the younger people.When a terrorist willfully kills a nonviolent person, is there any way this is a good thing? No. If a terrorist, who truly believes in the argument, out of nothing else to live for, commits himself to brutality a good thing? Maybe

Abolitionist John Brown:
Personally,I never would have thought of John Brown as a terrorist, but I can see the author’s argument. Similar to MLK, I look at both men as people who hastened something that had to inevitably happen at some point in time.With John Brown, he apparently employed very ruthless killings in order to strike terror throughout the South.I think the South was employing terrorism against blacks

Chechnya and Russia:
Upon reading about this one, I am reminded of 2 things: you can’t negotiate with terrorists And,fight fire with fire.There’s a description of the Russians coming into some makeshift Chechnya town and burning all the huts. Terrorists never surrender.Even after stooping down to them and burning everything, Chechnyans still would just as soon burn to death, thinking they are making a statement

Italian Unification (1860):
One thing clear to me, is that guerrilla warfare most often involves a strike and retreat form of combat. Garibaldi perfected this during the Italian unification. However, while the author tries to put Garibaldi in this category, he had a sense of empathy for his enemies, which I didn’t think was guerrilla. Also, he never wanted spoils of war. Do guerrillas want war riches or not?

The Romans:
Even in a book about guerrilla warfare, the Roman Empire must be discussed. The German tribes were the guerrillas and an eventual contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire. Although guerrilla warfare seemed very primitive without any strategy, the author introduces attacking and retreating. If the enemy pursues, then setup an ambush. The key was being light and quick, but also knowing the land well.

Sargon/The Bronze Age:
The author draws a loose connection between hunting and the art of combat. He thinks that agricultural farming came first. Out of the need to defend farming, loosely connected to The Bronze Age, the first combat was started by Sargon, ca 2350 BC, in Mesopotamia,using bronze-tipped spears. He introduces guerrilla warfare with the brutality, savagery, and complete destruction, no gain in wealth

Musket strategy:
The author is describing a strategy inherent to musket combat. The French are rushing towards the British with muskets blazing and the British are ordered to hold their fire. The musket smoke causes so much reduction in visibility that it becomes a successful risk to hold fire until the enemy is within 30 yards away. The British withstood the blind advance by the French and retaliated with fire

British landing at Anse au Foulon:
As best as I can make out, the British found a successful point of assault here because they kept the French off guard and they had acceptable weather.There were a couple French sentries who were fooled by the approaching British at night.Once the first company of rangers made it up the cliff and took out sentries, it was a massive strengthening of position by the British.

Battle of Beaumont:
This battle turns out to be a disaster for the British and Wolfe.He completely underestimates the weather and the range from enemy fire.The French slaughtered the British. Up to this point, the author has portrayed what appears to be an even match. The Native Americans for the French opposing the rangers of the colonies for the British. It didn’t help that the British controlled the water ways.

Can Quebec be taken?
Wolfe has just taken Louisbourg and given the assignment of going further down the St. Lawrence River and taking Quebec City. The French are very confident in their defensive position and they outnumber the English by 2 to 1. Wolfe has just arrived on the outskirts and realized that his original plan will not work. The entrenched opposition at the top of the cliffs appear too opposing.

My intro:
Does this book matter? According to the internet, 60% of Quebec speaks French and 40% speaks English. I have always considered Canadians to also be French,but I stand corrected. In my book on William Shatner, Shatner refers to another actor as being a Frenchman, implying that he is not French. Did Shatner speak French growing up? Why is there such an important statue of the English Admiral Nelson in Quebec?

1800-1805:
The author continues to describe the ongoing sea battles after the end of the US Revolution. The US and British became a little bit of friends against Napoleon and the French. Horatio Nelson dies in a winning battle at Trafalgar. The author explains Napoleon’s shortcomings and how he didn’t understand naval warfare nearly as well as land warfare. Napoleon wanted to cross the channel, but unsuccessful

Battle of the Nile:
Napoleon wanted Egypt and link through Malta to the European mainland.Nelson pursued the French to a Bay east of Alexandria where the Battle of the Nile commenced.Although Napoleon had taken Cairo, the loss by his French Navy negated any return.He was trapped in Cairo with no hope of rescue from his French Navy.Nelson’s strategy to have two parallel lines against the one French proved effective

Horatio Nelson:
The book paints this Admiral being the greatest Naval commander of all time(The GOAT).He had many victories over French and Spanish forces. He has a monument/column in Montreal that is supposedly controversial. 60% of Montreal speaks French, but a percentage of the French disagreed with the French Revolution and would have sided with Nelson. 20% are English speakers and naturally approve the Column.

Carronades and flintlocks:
The advances that took place were in the form of being able to start firing cannons in advance or continue after the parallel passing of the opposing ships.Cannonades were a light weight cannon mounted on a pivot and could be directed more to the front of the ship and the aft of the ship. Thusly, the advantage was created of engaging the enemy probably a whole minute ahead and after action

Warren to the Constitution:
In the span of 20 years, there was enormous advancement in firepower. As the book talks about the schooner, USS Warren leading an unsuccessful engagement, I researched that it had only 4 cannons with 4 lbs of ammunition. Twenty years later, with the USS Constitution, this firepower increased by about 140 times. The Constitution has some 50 cannons capable of about 50 lbs. ammunition each