uvAggravator2.0

Yesterday, the Washington Post had an article featuring SecState Hillary Clinton announcing a "new moment" in US foreign policy. 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Wednesday that "a new American moment" has arrived in international relations, "a moment when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways."

And that's exactly what is wrong with US foreign policy, according to Prof. Andrew Bacevich. In his book, he points to a "sacred trinity" of objectives that the U.S. government has sustained since World War II to maintain international peace and order: a global military presence,  a global power projection capability, and a policy of global interventionism. Everything that Washington politicians and power brokers have tried to do orients along this trinity, despite its repeated failures, and Bacevich presents this book to illustrate the Rules.

He starts with a discussion of Allen Dulles, first director of the CIA, and General Curtis LeMay, first commander of the Strategic Air Command. Both individuals made the conscious decision that, to counter the Soviet Union and its planned expansion of international communism, their agencies needed to develop a global presence to confront and combat said forces. Being fairly powerful and influential people, they were able to persuade the Washington decision makers to adopt their point of view over time. This philosophy grew through the Vietnam conflict era and beyond. 

Bacevich is particularly annoyed that, despite failing to rescue Vietnam from the communists, those who believed in the Washington Rules firmly rejected any possibility that their ideology was wrong, or that any other view of foreign policy might be considered. In their view, it was not that there were any flaws in trying to maintain a global military presence and to intervene anywhere in the world, it was that certain personal misjudgments and miscalculations had been made. Vietnam was an aberration, not the norm. The goal of Pax Americana, maintaining a strong military against aggressor nations through a network of overseas bases, was always correct.

Bacevich absolutely crushes the COINdanestas by proposing that the development of counterinsurgency tactics was more to cover the strategic failure that was the occupation of post-invasion Iran than an honest growth of military education. He mocks various passages of FM 3-24 as a lot of foam and not much beer. He bemoans the loss of the US armed forces' combat focus to a larger mission of trying to "temper the world's most grievous political and economic goals," because that's really not something they were meant to do. Of course, if you read any of the many "I was there in Iraq" war memoirs, you probably have figured that out by now. He sees the Long War as a call for a global strategic response to the problem of global insurgency, a "project literally without end."

I enjoyed this book - it's not Bacevich's best work, but it's solid. It's an expansion of Matt Yglesias's "Head in the Sand" in that Matt Y also noted this "liberal internationalist" bend that both Democrats and Republicans seem to adopt when developing foreign policy options.  Matt's book focused only on the Iraq invasion of 2003, while Bacevich provides a very academic thesis over decades. The only difference between the neocons and the liberal hawks is how they employ the instruments of national power - the methods and goals are largely the same. I'd also bring in the "The Hawk and the Dove" and George Kennan's views on American foreign policy developed - it matches this thesis.

Bacevich doesn't offer much of a solution, he's more focused on making his case that "we are so fucked," especially as President Obama has no real interest in changing the status quo of our foreign policy approach. He does suggest that the "sacred trinity" can be replaced by focusing the US military on defending the United States as opposed to "combating evil" or remaking the world; that American soldiers should be stationed in America; and that military force should be the absolute last resort and focused on self defense. He's not aligning himself with the anti-war crowd or liberal left here - he's being pragmatic and more of a realist than the Beltway establishment. It's what the true conservatives ought to be demanding.

For purposes of transparency, this book was provided to me by the publisher. 

Just frakkin' brilliant.

From the LA Times: "At the Wuppertal Zoo in Wuppertal, Germany, a two-week-old Amur tiger cub named Schuna is getting a great deal of attention from keepers.

"Schuna's mother, Mymosa, rejected the cub, so zoo veterinarian Arne Lawrenz and other staff members have taken over where she left off, bottle-feeding Schuna and giving round-the-clock care." 

I've been monitoring the hot debate over a Florida church's plans to host a "Burn a Koran" day on September 11 of this year. What's increased the temperature of the debate is that General David Petraeus, commander of multi-national forces in Afghanistan, top dog in the COINdanista forces, and beloved hero of the conservative "let's keep fighting in the Middle East forever" Republican politicians, has come out and said that this is really not a helpful action.

"I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible Koran burning," Petraeus said. "Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday. Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen backed that warning Tuesday. He said that any burning of Korans would strongly contradict "all the values we stand for and fight for."

In Florida, Jones rejected the warnings and said his church plans to go through with its "International Burn a Koran Day."

All of a sudden, all of those Republican politicans are quiet. They're not supporting their military hero anymore. In fact, some braying asses on the right are now accusing Petraeus of applying undue influence (as a military leader) on a domestic issue. I'm against burning any holy book as a form of protest - it creates more enemies emerge than presents a political statement. I thought I'd throw out a few thoughts that I've seen circulated by more reasoned, serious people.

First, is burning Korans (or Bibles or Torahs or whatever) a First Amendment issue or should someone in the federal government try to stop the crazy religious radicals (yes, America has them just like Afghanistan)? It seems clear that the crazies are perfectly in their rights to burn holy books, just as anti-war protestors have burned flags (remember the good old days when the conservatives were howling about that?). The Supreme Court seems to be settled on the opinion that, while these actions are odious, they are legal (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). And that's okay, but the Florida crowd really can't pretend that they are unaware of the violent reaction that will occur as a result of their actions. There is no doubt that the Taliban or AQ will ensure that this image gets spread across the 1.5 billion Muslim community as representative of the American people's view of Islam.

Second, when one views General Petraeus speaking out about the negative impact of this action, is it an infringement on the traditional civil-military relationship of the US government? Is he out of line in reviewing and commenting on a domestic action? Will he be speaking against anti-war rallies next, or legislative budgets that don't fund what he thinks is adequate for warfighting? I don't see Petraeus as trying to censor anyone's actions or speech here - what he's trying to do is to manage the strategic communications that will impact his ability to succeed in Afghanistan. He can't do his job and assure the Afghani government and public that the United States wants to support the development of a moderate Islamic government while the American public is perceived as burning the holy book of its population. It really doesn't help, and it will directly imperil American troops.

Third, is Petraeus doing this on his own initiative? Shouldn't other government officials be the official voices on this matter? In fact, SecState Clinton did speak her piece, as did White House spokesperson Roger Gibbs, but no one in the White House is stepping forward to add any comments. Both SecDef Gates and ADM Mullen have spoken to this issue through representatives, and LTG Austin (commanding general of US forces, Iraq) has stated his view. It seems clear from people who know and follow Petraeus that he's not flying single on this. There's no doubt by defense insiders that he got permission to speak and to use particular words in that Washington Post article.

So we'll see what happens on Saturday, and be prepared to do some damage control. But it's an interesting case to discuss some of the military aspects of the impact of this "burning Koran incident." And it's a sad commentary on the state of hysteria in our society. We aren't going to win the "War on Terror" by inflaming moderate Muslims through Koran burning and protests about building "9/11 mosques."

UPDATE: The president chimes in.

"Look, this is a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda. You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who'd be willing to blow themselves up in American cities, or European cities," he said.

It's not about censorship. That's why we wear the white hats.

The Washington Post has a couple of articles discussing one of our national security pastimes - the threat of Iran's nascent nuclear weapons program. As they march down the path of increased nuclear technology, do their protests of not seeking a nuclear weapons capability still hold water?

Last month, Iran informed the [IAEA] that it had underestimated the accumulation of nuclear material there and that it had mistakenly broken seals on materials or equipment.

The IAEA said that it has not been granted access to a heavy-water production plant, forcing it to rely solely on satellite imagery to assess the plant's operations. The agency said it also has been denied information about plans for new enrichment facilities that Iran has said it intends to build.

In a recent reply, Iran said that "it would provide the agency with the required information 'in due time,' according to the report. Tehran has previously argued that it is not obligated to disclose even the existence of such facilities until they are completed. 

Iran's treatment of the IAEA inspectors seems to be lacking in civility. They're ensuring that any sharp inspectors don't get any experience in examining their nuclear facilities or materials.

While all member states select inspectors from an official IAEA list, some Western nations on the agency's 35-nation board argue that because Iran has banned more than 40 inspectors over the past four years, a case could be made that Tehran is violating the agency's so-called Safeguards Agreement.

The agreement is meant to ensure that the IAEA can monitor Iran's nuclear program without impediments to make sure it is solely for peaceful purposes.
 -------
In a related development, six Arab nations across the Persian Gulf from Iran issued a statement Tuesday calling on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA, saying they wanted Tehran to adhere to the principles of international law and help efforts to make the Middle East a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

Iran's going to get a nuke sooner or later, most likely later - more than a year from now. It doesn't mean that they will instantly deploy a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead to attack Israel, and it won't decide that a terrorist organization is the best opportunity to defeat the West and Israel. What it does mean is that Iran wants a guarantee that no one is going to invade them and that its government may decide to use its strategic weapon to be a little more bold in participating in regional affairs. 

So instead of discussing how Israel is going to pre-emptively attack Iran and what a future nuclear conflict between the two states would look like, we ought to be discussing how to increase stability measures and practice old strategic deterrence policy. Iran understands strength versus strength. It's not an excuse to bomb Iran, that's just insane people talking.

There's a popular theory amongst some in the WMD community that there is going to be a point in time when certain countries (whom we do not like) get nuclear weapons, this will cause a "cascade" of nuclear weapons proliferation in the surrounding states within the region (and possibly in other regions). I think they use the term "nuclear proliferation cascade" instead of "nuclear domino" theory because it's uncomfortable to remind them that the domino theory really didn't work to institutionalize communism in Eastern Europe or Southwest Asia. That, and the new term has more syllables... But the terms "nuclear proliferation cascade" and "nuclear dominoes" are roughly equivalent.

So Kingston at Nukes of Hazard points at this Foreign Affairs article by Johan Bergenas titled "The Nuclear Domino Myth" to downplay the tired meme that the West cannot allow Iran to get The Bomb because that means every Arab Gulf nation will want to develop the same capability. And then unspecified bad things will happen. T'aint necessarily so, he says.

The fruit of these efforts to prevent rapid and widespread nuclear proliferation, then, is the very reason a nuclear domino effect remains a myth. In the Middle East, there are no signs that the nuclear dominos will fall anytime soon. Although many governments believe that Iran could be one to three years away from developing a nuclear bomb, all other Middle Eastern countries (besides Israel) are at least 10 to 15 years away from reaching such a capability.

This time frame gives Washington ample opportunity to establish or reaffirm security pacts with countries that might be tempted to develop their own nuclear weapons programs in reaction to a potential Iranian bomb. In fact, that work has already begun. In July 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of the possibility of the United States extending a "defense umbrella" over the Gulf region and shoring up those countries' military capabilities if Iran goes nuclear.

More generally, the United States is trying to reinforce a culture of nonproliferation in the Middle East. In late 2009, Washington concluded an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to forego the enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel -- crucial steps in the development of nuclear weapons. (In return, the United Arab Emirates will receive help developing a civilian nuclear-energy program.) Similar overtures are being made to both Saudi Arabia and Jordan, states that are pursuing civilian nuclear-power programs to diversify their energy supplies.

Another achievement came during the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, when the United States endorsed the convening of a regional meeting on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The summit is due to be held in 2012 and, although Israel's nuclear weapons complicate matters, could serve as another step toward cementing a nonproliferation culture in the region.

These are major accomplishments in preventing proliferation in the Middle East, and they contradict the worst-case scenarios about a nuclear Iran. Yet they have done little to reassure those who expect a chain reaction of proliferating states.

Bergenas notes that the worst thing that could happen is that either the "nuclear proliferation cascade" will become a self-fulfilling prophecy ("well, it's expected that the UAE and Saudi Arabia and Jordan should get nukes, now that Iran has one, so it's okay) or that US policy makers will develop preventive policy options based on worst-case scenarios ("we have to nuke them and we have to nuke them now!"). Everyone agrees that Iran's getting the bomb will increase regional instability, and in particular, rachet up saber-rattling with Israel. But we don't need the extra myth of the nuclear dominoes to push for continued engagement with the Gulf states and to continue nonproliferation discussions across the region. "To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war," said Churchill.

Interesting pictoral of different combat meals from various nations in the New York Times. The food selections are both interesting in their attempts to match the cuisine of their homelands and in the similarity of particular foodstuffs (biscuits, coffee, matches). It sure doesn't look like the MREs that I had in the 1980s.

The people who brought us the "US govt is behind the Amerithrax incident" conspiracy are now expanding their concerns. Now they believe that there is an emerging danger in the proposed construction of a biological vaccine facility in Malaysia. You see, we just have to be concerned about any Muslim nation who intends to develop advanced technologies in the life sciences or nuclear technologies... they're Muslim, after all, and Teh Terrorists are, too.

In January 2008, in a little-noticed deal, Emergent [BioSolutions], or EBS, announced a joint venture with a firm funded by the Malaysian Health Ministry to build 52,000 square feet of "vaccine development and manufacturing infrastructure" on a 62-acre site in an industrial park just outside of Kuala Lumpur.
-------
On a Web page describing architectural plans for the Malaysian venture is a sentence that has raised some eyebrows. It says the companies plan to build a "biocontainment R&D facility that includes BSL ... 3 and 4 laboratories."
-------
Malaysia, where six in 10 citizens are Muslims, was tied to several terrorist plots earlier in the decade. Al-Qaida leaders used Kuala Lumpur as the "primary operational launch pad" for the 9/11 attacks, the FBI says. An organization known as Jemaah Islamiyah operating out of Malaysia bombed a disco in neighboring Bali in 2002, killing 202 people; the group's leaders were subsequently arrested and executed by Indonesian authorities.

More disturbing are recent revelations that Kuala Lumpur was a crucial base of operations in the lucrative black-market nuclear centrifuge network put together by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan.

For some experts, this raises a question of whether it is wise to encourage the creation of a BSL-4 lab there.

Now this is already a really questionable conclusion, that we ought to fear the possibility that Malaysia might  allow its facility to be a source for bioterrorists. Malaysia is a signatory of both the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention, and there is clear evidence that a market exists for vaccines that can be applied to Muslims who are concerned about where the products were developed (they want a halal version of the vaccine, to be blunt). Biological diseases run rampant in Southeast Asia, and given the money and the market, of course Big Pharma is going to be interested.

Yes, Emergent is involved in making biological vaccines for anthrax. Maybe the Malaysian government wants that, too. But as long as everyone is following international and national regulations for health and safety, what's the big deal? You can't seriously expect any nation to outlaw the development of life sciences or nuclear technologies in growing, populated nations just because there are Muslims there. How do you get emerging countries out of "The Gap" (see Thomas Barnett) if you're afraid to help the population there?

But wait... the craziness continues. If you can't trust the Malaysian government, can you afford to trust... our own government? Maybe this vaccine facility is actually an attempt by the US government to circumvent federal laws preventing research into offensive biological warfare agents and delivery systems? (Cue dramatic music... dant dah dahhhhh!!!)

Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois, suspects that more than just commercial considerations may be at play. Professor Boyle helped to draft the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which makes it a federal crime to develop or produce biological weapons.

He wonders if projects like the Malaysian lab could be used to circumvent U.S. rules against biological projects with offensive applications.
-------
"It seems to me that this could be a very dangerous end-run by EBS and its government funders around the numerous legal restrictions now put in place since 9/11 making it difficult to research, develop and test bioweapons domestically," says Boyle.

Boyle says it's reasonable to ask if the Kuala Lumpur operation will be part of the U.S. government's controversial "laboratory threat characterization research" programs, under which scientists are charged with developing and testing newly bioengineered pathogens under the rubric of developing medical countermeasures for a potential threat. This type of research, mandated by a presidential directive in April 2004, is conducted within classified "Black Projects" sponsored by the Pentagon and the CIA and carried out by private contractors.

While it's reasonable to ask, it's ludicrous to use the phrase "developing and testing newly bioengineered pathogens under the rubric of developing medical countermeasures." No, actually, it's not a "rubric," the US government actually thinks that it should be prepared to distribute medical countermeasures against engineered biological agents. You can argue as to whether this is a valid concern or whether it is being correctly executed, but it's not a rubric. And this facility is not an end-run around federal regulations. This is just all crazy talk.

Or is this how the Umbrella Corp gets its start? (dant dah dahhh!!!)

UPDATE: Unfortunately, the Global Security Newswire repeats the conspiracy nonsense instead of refuting it or ignoring it.

The USA Today's Tom Vanden Brook likes to talk about the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles -  he's covered the topic for years, pushing the notion that the Pentagon was derelict in its reluctance to field these armored busses to forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, while studiously avoiding the issue of whether the vehicles are actually contributing to mission success. He reports that the MRAPs are saving lives in Afghanistan today (despite other reports that the vehicle doesn't really do that well in that country's terrain).

Nearly 80% of roadside bomb attacks on Humvees from January 2009 through the end of July 2010 killed occupants, according to U.S. Air Force Maj. Michael Johnson, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, the top command in Afghanistan. That figure dropped to 15% for attacks on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, and an all-terrain MRAP model tailor-made for Afghanistan's rugged terrain. The trucks are designed to shield people from roadside bomb blasts.

The military estimates that MRAPs have reduced deaths and injuries by 30% over that time. That amounts to dozens of lives saved each month.

More than $40 billion will have been spent by the end of September to build, ship and maintain MRAPs.

It's a good thing that our troops can be protected from IEDs, if not from the shock it causes to their brains, during their multiple deployments to Afghanistan. But hey, that's not today's problem, so Vanden Brook doesn't focus on that post-conflict trauma issue. The important thing is whether the $40 billion investment in MRAPs actually results in our troops being able to accomplish the mission, right? Read on...

The MRAP's ability to reduce casualties is important, said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. But other factors are also considered in determining its usefulness.

"Ultimately it will be judged more on whether it helped U.S. troops accomplish their mission in Afghanistan than on its ability to reduce casualties," Krepinevich said in an e-mail. "Right now the war's outcome is still in doubt. If we succeed, the MRAPs, despite their high cost, will be seen as worth it. If we fail, some people will likely question whether we could have succeeded by adopting a different strategy and employing our resources differently."

I thought the initial investment of $20 billion in MRAPs for Iraq was irresponsible and a political kneejerk to emotional stories about troops dieing in urban conflicts. While it's tragic to lose one's son or father in an unjustifiably long war, it's worse to think that there were better ways to avoid that loss (like getting all of our forces out of Afghanistan in 2003). To spend $40 billion on the same technology, and then to promote its use in the Army's next Ground Combat Vehicle despite its high cost, operational limitations, and failure to add to mission success, is just stupidity in action. The American military's approach to warfare somehow results in this "technology will overcome our ineptness in combat" attitude that I just do not understand.

It's a crime that a classic naval ship like the USS Olympia is in danger of being scrapped because musuem officials can't find $10 million to fix her up. I'm sure there's some official reason why the Navy can't toss the money to this public foundation, but certainly the Congress should. It's chump change.

Olympia steamed out of San Francisco in 1892 and served most notably as flagship of the Asiatic Squadron in the Spanish-American War.

Its vertical reciprocating engines, refrigeration system and hydraulic steering previewed the technological advances to come; its vestigial sails and oak-paneled, parlor-like officers' quarters marked the passing Victorian era.

From Olympia's bridge on May 1, 1898, during the Battle of Manila Bay in the Phillippines, Commodore George Dewey uttered the famous command: "You may fire when you are ready, Gridley." The Spanish fleet was decimated, making Dewey — and the Olympia — national heroes.

I would also support funding the restoration of the USS New Jersey and SS United States. These are historic ships - they deserve better fates than the scrap yard. Maybe Bill Gates or some other corporate fatcat can shake some loose change from his wallet.

The non-victory-lap victory lap broadcast from the Oval Office last week showed beyond any lingering doubt that young Mr. Obama is every bit the prevaricator that young Mr. Bush was. But the mission semi-accomplished speech carried an even darker announcement: the unconditional surrender of our political leadership to the American Pentarchy, that malevolent confluence of Big Brother, Big Bucks, Big Oil, Big Arms, Big Bandwidth, Big Jesus, Big Zion, and big-shot generals and politicians who sustain the Pentagon’s Long War agenda. Only someone with the IQ of a tea bag could fail to recognize that Obama’s Mission Pseudo-Accomplished speech was a post-Orwellian masterpiece of Dubya-classdisassembly. “The combat mission in Iraq has ended,” Obama told us, but there’s lots of fighting ahead. Our troops “defeated a regime that had terrorized” Iraq’s people, then they “shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people” from, uh, each other. Because of “the resilience of the Iraqi people,” they’re still a threat to themselves. “All U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year” unless our generals and other military advisers say leaving is a bad idea, which they’ve already said, time and time and time and time and time and timeagain. And oh yeah, all this is Bush’s fault, but you can’t doubt the schmuck’s “support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.” Or can you? Bush could give a speech like that with a straight face because he lacked sufficient moral and cognitive subtlety to understand how full of crap he was. Obama doesn’t have that excuse. His father didn’t even stick around to watch him grow up, much less buy him degrees from Harvard and Yale, and Air National Guard pilot wings, and spiritual redemption from a televangelist, and a baseball team, and a political career. Obama had to acquire clout the hard way, which means he spent more time operating under the table than a Bangkok bar girl. As a result, Obama has developed a sophisticated capacity for Orwellian Doublethink, the ability to simultaneously accept both of two contradictory beliefs as truth. It isn’t like the warning signs weren’t there all along. When candidate Obama swore he’d pinch it off in Iraq in order to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, we might have suspected that something with a reek nailed to it was headed our way. In another telling campaign event that largely flew under the radar, Obama camp foreign policy wonks Tony Lake and Susan Rice signed their boss onto a “study report” issued by theWashington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an AIPAC subsidiary. The “report,” titled Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge, concluded that the U.S. must be open to taking “preventative military action” against Iran in order to protect Israel or accept that Israel may be forced to take military action on its own. I never heard Obama mention that during the debates, did you? It must have slipped his mind. Some of us feared the jig was up when a victorious Obama announced he’d keep Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, “King David” Petraeus, “Desert Ox” Odierno, and the rest of the surgin’ safari on the job despite their public stands in opposition to the kinds of withdrawal timelines he had proposed during his run for the White House. His appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state ensured that war would continue to trump diplomacy as America’s foreign policy tool of choice. Then Obama agreed to Gen. David McKiernan’s request to escalate the Afghanistan war even though neither McKiernan nor the Joint Chiefs could tell him what the end game in that conflict might look like. He let Petraeus Inc. bully him into firing McKiernan and replacing him with Petraeus darling Stan McChrystal, and then he let McChrystal pry-bar him into yet another escalation. When it came time to fire McChrystal, Obama stiff-armed the opportunity to clean his five-sided house of ill repute and sack the entire junta like he should have when he took office. Instead he put Petraeus in McChrystal’s old job and continued to leave the Bush-era mafia in place. It is now clear that the Aug. 31 end-of-combat milestone was a mockery, and that the other withdrawal timeline dates for both Iraq and Afghanistan are equally farcical. There is a certain healthy aspect to once and for all coming out of one’s state of denial about Obama and his relationship with the warmongery. Unfortunately, that’s just the first step of a startling journey into the dark corners of our national psyche. For not only has the War Borg assimilated Obama, it has consumed his party as well. Congressional Democrats have had nearly four years to pull the plug on our woebegone wars in Western Asia and have declined to do so. And the alternative to our present ruling faction is a party that owes its allegiance to the undead sorts who flocked to Washington last week to worship Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial. Worse yet is that when we look to the highbrow end of the GOP lineup we find Newt Gingrich, who as a political philosopher makes Niccolò Machiavelli look like Lao Tzu. Newt is the master of every underhanded ruse of Socratic rhetoric. One of his favorites is the false analogy, with which he recently pseudo-refuted the right of American citizens to build a mosque in the vicinity of the Twin Towers by saying, “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” In one fell swoop, Newt equated all Muslims with Nazis and he equated a place of worship to a “sign,” presumably one that would say something spiteful about Jews who suffered in the Holocaust. Newt would have been making a fair analogy if he’d said, “Lutherans don’t have a right to build a day-care center next to the Holocaust Museum,” but even Glenn and Sarah might think that kind of talk was crazy, or at least be forced to confess that they didn’t have a clue what Newt was quacking about. And it would never dawn on Glenn or Sarah or their sub-sentient acolytes that Newt was demonizing Muslims in the exact same manner that the Nazis demonized Jews. Our quest for the lesser evil has arrived at an impasse. On one hand we have a world-class Doublethinker who expects us to thank him for keeping promises he has vigorously broken and to accept the cynical notion that war is peace. On the other we have a mob of flesh-eating galoots who promise to give us Orwell’s Hate Week 52 weeks a year for as long as it takes them to bring about Armageddon. Originally posted @ Antiwar.com.  

I promise to minimize partisan politics in this blog, but I started it out of disgust with the outcome of the 2004 presidential elections. I have no idea why the majority of the American public would even begin to consider going back to the political party that placed them in the horrible economic position that we're currently in, but I suppose it may be more due to push-back against a president they don't see delivering on his campaign promises (or whatever reason you want to propose).

Fine, I get it, I'm not happy with the pace of change either, but understand that if you place the GOP back in power in Congress because you don't like this president's policies, things are going to get worse, not better. If the GOP gets the House (and gods forbid, the Senate), count on continuing growth to defense programs that result in gold-plated weapon systems that we can't afford to operate or lose in combat. Count on spending a few more years than planned where we get to read headlines about US soldiers and Marines dieing in Afghanistan and Iraq as billions of dollars pour into the fantasy that "if we outlast them, despite the corrupt host governments, we can win." Count on bombastic speeches about how we need to reverse health care and financial reform so that the Republican party's donors can get well and our lives can continue sucking.

If you don't like Obama, fine, vote him out in 2012. But as Tom Toles notes, it's difficult to understand the mentality of "We like Republicans even less than Democrats but plan to elect them in a landslide, and that this will improve things."

UPDATE: Yeah, we know the Dems are their own worst enemy. From Whiskey Fire:

SLOGAN: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY -- GIVING THE REPUBLICANS ONE MORE CHANCE TO DESTROY THE PLANET EVERY FEW YEARS OR SO.

There's a fucking bumpersticker right there.

Tammy asked a serious question yesterday in regards to how I might distinguish between "weapons of mass destruction" and the large explosive events that we've seen in Pakistan and Iraq. I realize that I do often huff and puff about the FBI's misuse of the term without going into the source definition of what I consider a WMD. I believe I've referred to Dr. Seth Carus's excellent monograph on this issue. He does point to the problem that we in the WMD community face.

The problem associated with defining WMD starts with a widespread perception that there is no accepted definition for the term and that it means whatever the user wants it to mean.

The phrase “weapons of mass destruction” . . . is an amorphous one, changing meaning according to the whims of the speaker. Raising the specter of WMD is more a way by which politicians assign blame or take a stand on seemingly objective moral standards than a way by which they assess a particular weapons system.

Others find fault with existing definitions and offer new definitions that differ in some radical way from those commonly accepted. Still others, believing that the traditional definitions for WMD are intellectually problematic, propose to drop the term altogether.

But, as Dr. Carus points out, we can't drop the term because the arms control community has a distinct and precise term in mind when they say "WMD," and the media and politicians won't stop using the term for their own purposes. So it does help to refresh our discussion about the term "WMD" and what it means. When I use the term "WMD," I'm in line with the arms control community who use it to describe the military use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons to cause high numbers of casualties over a significant geographic area. The Gilmore commission released a homeland security report in 1999 that referred to "CBRN terrorism" because its members didn't believe that terrorists could really develop a WMD capability similar to states.

When the United Nations defined the term in 1948, they were open to other forms of weaponry - just as long as it was equivalent to "atomic weapons" in terms of destructive power. Back then, they included chemical and biological weapons because they envisioned fleets of strategic bombers dropping tons of chemical and biological warfare agents on unprotected cities. Keep in mind, this was just after World War II, so you can forgive them for including CB weapons along with nukes.

I don't think the hang-up is with the WMD definition as much as it is the definition for mass casualties. For whatever reason, people don't want to put a number to it. They have this qualitative scenario in mind where a "mass casualty event" is when you have one more casualty than hospital beds, be it in a city, county, or state response to an accident/incident. That is not a helpful definition when developing federal policies or capabilities. I have seen the position voiced that we need to define different levels of "mass casualties" so that we can have a better discussion on options, something like this:

• Type I - 100-1000 (Oklahoma City bombing)
• Type II - 1000-5000 (9/11 incident)
• Type III - 5000-50,000 (Hiroshima nuclear bomb)

Under these numbers, I would argue that "WMDs" don't occur until you run into types II & III. Under a thousand is definitely a mass casualty event, but not necessarily the result of a WMD.  I'm not wed to these numbers in particular, but I think that having a scale would at least allow us to have sensible discussions on emergency response options and federal policy on differing incidents, from the use of explosives and industrial chemicals on the low side to the use of CB weapons and nuclear bombs at the high end. It would at least help clarify to how adequate the response capabilities developed by state and federal agencies are to address specific incidents.

This was a long discussion to say that I don't think we need a new word for suicide bombings that claim 50-100 lives or that we need to use the term "WMD" to describe these incidents. It's always a tragedy to see unprotected civilians (and especially children) die from bombings, but that's been going on for some time. It's not a reason to flatter the bombers by calling them "WMD incidents" or mass casualty events.

If the Army's Operating Concept (2016-2028) is any indication of the group-think up at DOD, then I probably am safe from the unemployment lines for a little while longer. There's a collection of thoughts on WMD issues in here that demonstrate that the Army (and DOD) are still desperately in need of WMD specialists. On page 10, it lists the "most likely and most dangerous threats" in the future operating environment.

(1) Most likely. Violent extremism remains the most likely threat to U.S. interests. Though not directly threatening vital interests, extremist acts can cause great damage and regional instability that may require U.S. intervention.

Yes, the most likely future is one where we look forward to the US government continuing to "pre-emptively" interfere with other countries as it looks for insurgents, militias, and terrorists to confront. Keep in mind that this document was written by COINdanista BG H.R. McMaster.

(2) Most dangerous. A nation state possessing both conventional and WMD capabilities with the intent to use against U.S. interests, presents the most dangerous threat. This danger increases when a nation state sponsors, shelters and supports nonstate proxies willing to disregard the historic norms of conflict.

And by "WMD capabilities," they really mean "nuclear," but why be specific when you can use a misleading, generic term like WMD? But really, the second sentence? "Hi, this is the GW Bush administration in 2002 calling, we'd like our paradigm back."

(3) A dangerous alternative. Though neither most likely nor most dangerous, the threat of an individual or extremist organization employing a nuclear device in the U.S. is the most dangerous alternative. As worldwide proliferation of nuclear capabilities continues, adversarial regimes and extremist groups are likely to gain control of nuclear materials that, in turn, could be made available to rogue scientists.

This is certainly a novel approach to explaining why anyone should pay attention to a hypothetical, low-probability high-consequence movie drama scenario. Now I grant you that the increase in nations developing nuclear technology as alternatives to traditional energy may potentially increase the amount of fissile material out there. But really, "rogue scientists"?? I will concede that the term exists, but honestly, that's just a false attempt at trying to keep the government for whom those scientists work from being too outraged at the suggestion that they're indirectly (or directly) supporting nuclear proliferation.

Hey, there's a whole section on "prevent proliferation and counter WMD operations" on page 31. That's sure to be interesting stuff. Let's take a look:

a. The proliferation of WMD continues to undermine global security, further complicating efforts to sustain peace and prevent arms races. [this statement is footnoted as coming from the 2002 National Strategy to Combat WMD - really, using a Bush administration document that was written to support the invasion of Iraq for Army concepts in 2010?] The instability or collapse of a state possessing WMD is among the Nation’s most troubling concerns. [because frankly we can't think of a scenario where any nation would be dumb enough to use chemical or biological weapons against us] Such an occurrence could lead to rapid proliferation of WMD material, weapons, and technology, and could quickly become a global crisis posing a direct physical threat to the U.S. and all other nations. [just like it did in 2002... honestly] Moreover, Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks have demonstrated an interest in acquiring WMD. [not that they've shown any ability to actually develop an real WMD capability over the past decade, mind you, but hey, there's "interest"]

b. Preventing proliferation and counter WMD operations require forces able to monitor, detect, and interdict the production, transfer, or employment of technologies and devices. [remember the good old days when we just fought countries and not "technologies"?] In the event of collapse of a state with WMD, the Army must be prepared to enter into unexpected and austere locations to secure production and storage facilities. [See ROK-US Army exercises, conduct of]

c. Through sustained engagement, the Army increases the capacity of partner nations to protect WMD technologies and devices from internal and external threats. The Army uses standoff radiological and nuclear detection capabilities [No, actually, we don't, since that technology doesn't exist yet] and improves the responsiveness of consequence management forces both at home and abroad. [and we'll reinvent the actual forces and concepts to do this every few years] When tasked to secure WMD, forces neutralize or render safe devices and their components. [because that's what President Cheney would have wanted] In addition, they respond to the release of harmful effects to protect the force and populations.

I really love the Army, no matter how hard its leadership tries to misunderstand WMD issues and to avoid any significant attempt to lead the DOD in developing concrete, sustainable CBRN defense concepts and capabillities. It's a crazy thing. People tell me I should stop defending the Army Chemical Corps, but it's hard to do. On the other hand, our government's stubborn refusal to develop a sound strategy for countering WMD just continues to frustrate me. I know there are smarter people in the US Army than the ones who authored this counter-WMD language in this document.

Peter Brown, our WMD journalist for the Asia Times Online, discusses Hiroshima's other World War II legacy - when an offshore island laboratory was a site for the development of chemical weapons for the Japanese army. Let's read on.

Important buildings also survive from the World War II era on Okunoshima Island. The island might qualify as a heritage site because it is perhaps one of very few sites - if not the only site - in Japan where buildings and other facilities constructed for the purpose of creating weapons of mass destruction are still intact.
 ----------
It is estimated that more than 6 million tons of poison gas were produced on Okunoshima Island by the time operations ceased in 1945. The gas was loaded into thousands of artillery shells. Chinese victims died by the thousands and these deaths continue today in China, although deaths and injuries due to accidents stemming from the sudden unearthing and mishandling of Japanese chemical weapons appear to have declined sharply in recent years. 

As recently as May, however, Japan's Supreme Court rejected the appeals filed by Chinese plaintiffs who were seeking damages in two separate lawsuits from the Japanese government after Japanese chemical bombs exploded in China years after World War II ended. Thousands of additional Japanese chemical bombs buried across China's countryside are yet to be discovered.  

To tell you the truth, I am not very familiar with details on Japan's World War II chem-bio weapons program. The general discussions on Japan's war in China suggest that its development and use of chem-bio weapons was limited and not continued after 1941. Records on the use of CB weapons between 1935 and 1941 are few and not detailed. I'm not sure that I would agree that the number of Chinese deaths from these weapons rivaled Hiroshima's death count in August 1945, but who knows?

Japan has taken a while to address its chemical weapons legacy in China, but its disposal program is starting to take off now. Again, not an area that I am intimately familiar, but from what I understand, Japan's had some leeway because of the details of the Chemical Weapons Convention differentiate between "abandoned" chemical weapons and those chemical weapons in a nation's stockpile. So yes, they are still there in China, but Japan's been working with the Chinese government on disposing of the chemical weapons for the past decade. This article in Time magazine, in fact, suggests that most of the Japanese chemical weapons remained in China after the end of World War II.

I'm slightly confused by the motivations of AP standards editor Tom Kent as he advises his ace journalists to ignore the Obama administration's statements that US forces have completed combat operations in Iraq. He seems to prefer it that the AP continues to view Iraq as a combat zone and that US forces are still engaged with the enemy. But I suppose the AP hasn't really been clear on political and military issues for some time. Here's the part of the memo I really dislike:

Our stories about Iraq should make clear that U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended. We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq, or that it has transferred military authority to Iraqi forces. We can add that beyond U.S. boots on the ground, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter possible attack from abroad.

Unless there is balancing language, our content should not refer to the end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement. Nor should it say flat-out (since we can't predict the future) that the United States is at the end of its military role.

This is just flat-out ignorant guidance. There's a big difference between US Army units conducting independent combat missions against insurgent targets in Iraq, based on direction from USCENTCOM and US Forces-Iraq, and US Army advisors accompanying Iraqi military forces as the Iraqi government directs. I don't believe the president's speech (or any DOD speeches) have hinted at the "end of combat in Iraq, or the end of U.S. military involvement."

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but when a news story talks about US forces "in combat," to me it infers that the majority of US forces in Iraq are still fighting Fallujah and Sadr City-type battles with limited, if any, Iraqi support. There's been a significant shift in the dynamic, and yet we see the AP editors pushing to retain the narrative that we'll be in Iraq "for years" because of an assumption that Iraqi security forces are still too weak to function effectively. That's just not unbiased reporting that you can count on.  

I almost thought this was an Onion article, but evidently not. GEN (ret) Stan McChrystal will be teaching "Leadership in Operation" at Yale this fall. The tentative syllabus is available at this site. There's an interesting description of the first seminar (dated as starting on Sept 7th):

Seminar 1: The Importance of Leading Differently: The Changing Operating Environment

Description: A description of how changes in our operating environment over the 34 years of my service have demanded changes in how organizations operate – and how leaders lead them. For the military, focus often falls too narrowly - on technological advances in weaponry and armor. But like most organizations, truly significant changes in technology, politics, media, and society overall have driven change to almost every aspect of leading. Increasingly, the product of a failure to change - is failure.

Historical Examples:

Case Study 1: The career of Stanley McChrystal
Case Study 3: The 2002-2003 decision to invade Iraq
Case Study 3: The United States Civil War
Case Study 4: German Grand Strategy of World War 2

I'd love to participate in the discussions on the second case study. Hopefully we'll hear more about this very interesting course later in the semester.

The Department of Justice continues its attempts to screw up the term "weapons of mass destruction" in its latest charges against the Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud. At the DOJ website, we find this announcement:

Hakimullah Mehsud, the self-proclaimed emir of the Pakistani Taliban, has been charged by criminal complaint for his alleged involvement in the murder of seven American citizens on Dec. 30, 2009 at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, the Justice Department announced today.

The two-count criminal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Aug. 20, 2010 and unsealed today, charges Hakimullah Mehsud, aka Hakimullah Mahsud, with conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens abroad and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives) against U.S. citizens abroad.
-------------
Hakimullah Mehsud inherited the role as the leader of the TTP after its former leader and founder, Baitullah Mehsud, was killed in August 2009, according to the affidavit.  Hakimullah Mehsud remains the commander of TTP, which continues to plan and carry out attacks against the interests of the United States from the FATA.  The TTP has recently claimed responsibility for the May 1, 2010 failed bombing of Times Square in New York and also claimed responsibility for the Dec. 30, 2009 suicide bombing in Afghanistan that is charged in the criminal complaint unsealed today.

Note to the DOJ lawyers. Yeah, I know you continue that ridiculous tendency to call suicide bombers and vehicle-embedded IEDs as "weapons of mass destruction" because of the Title 18 definition. I just want you to recognize that your agency is primarily responsible for the deterioration of intelligent discourse on the topic because of that loose definition that you so liberally use. No, really, thanks.

Fur meine Frau.

Hat tip to Spencer!

I'm disappointed to learn that the Army's Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) project is going ahead with the construction and emplacement of 16 "Immobolized Cell Bioreactors" at the future Pueblo Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Alternatives Pilot Project. Bad enough that the Army is being forced to adopt a neutralization technology for the mass disposal of chemical weapons - a technology that has never been used at this scale (thus the name change, I suppose, to a "pilot project") at a cost of roughly twice that of a similar incineration facility. The Army had proposed to save millions of dollars by shipping the hydrolysate waste from the neutralization to an off-site private contractor - as it has successfully done for the Newport and Aberdeen disposal facilities. But no, that would mean fewer jobs for Colorado citizens.

For Irene Kornelly, seeing the units being lowered into place by a massive crane was especially heartening.

Kornelly is the chairwoman of the Colorado Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commission. The commission led the fight to get the biotreatment done here when Defense Department officials wanted to ship the hydrolysate to an offsite treatment facility. The Pentagon claimed that off-site treatment would save $150 million in the more than $3 billion program. [actually closer to $4 billion]

Commission members argued that the estimated savings didn't take into consideration contingencies that could be a lot more costly. They pointed out, for example, that shipping the hydrolysate could set the stage for more delays if there was a spill in transit that brought on litigation stopping further shipments.
--------
"[The Defense Department] told us it only meant 30 jobs but 30 jobs is 30 jobs in this economy," she said.

What a load of shit. In the past decade, the Army moved thousands of tons of hydrolysate from Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to treatment facilities in Delaware, as well as from Newport, Indiana, to treatment facilities in Texas. There were zero spills in both cases. The only delays in the treatment program were the litigation suits brought on by environmental activists, some of whom might be thought of as close friends of Irene Kornelly.

I salute Ms. Kornelly in her open statements that she's quite willing to let the federal government's pay $5 million for each of those new jobs created by forcing the hydrolysate treatment to occur at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. It's quite an economic stimulus for the locals. Who cares if the mustard-filled artillery rounds sit there for another decade? It's just easy money in the bank for them.

Yes, let's all stop and thank former President George Bush for getting us into, and eventually out of, a war with Iraq. Listen at the 1:45 point:

"Well, of course the fundamental reason we went to war was because President Bush, just as President Clinton and all before him were told [that] Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons. And after being hit on September 11, the decision President Bush had to make is, when you were told as president that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, is your reaction - we're America, there's nothing we can do about it, or, it's unacceptable, I will do something about it - that was the decision President Bush made. The calamity - the horror - is that we went to war for a reason that turned out to be wrong."

Ari has this patter down cold - it's a well-worn excuse. It's also a shame that people don't remind him that 1) Saddam Hussein didn't attack us on September 11; 2) the CIA's report on Iraq's WMD program assessed that Saddam would not give CB weapons to terrorists; and 3) the real fear expressed by Bush administration officials was that Saddam was seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and that was "unacceptable." No one was really sweating the CB weapons.

Gaddamn snakes - Obama administration is getting us out of Iraq in 2011, and this provides the former administration officials the stage to recraft their sorry-ass excuses for getting us into Iraq in 2003. Do us a favor, just shut the hell up.

Back later. Busy travel day.

One of the things that I distinctly dislike in our national security dialogue on WMD issues is how the medical community tends to lump emerging infectious diseases with biological warfare agents as all part of the "biological threat" continuum. It's as if they think all we have to do is focus on the medical diagnosis and response to both manmade and natural diseases, and that's all you really have to consider to succeed. It doesn't work like that in real life, though.

That's why it's really annoying to see the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense (ATSD[NCB]) take a billion dollars away from the DOD Chemical-Biological Defense Program - and specifically non-medical programs - to fund a medical vaccine facility for pandemic flu. It's not DOD's role to do this, and DHHS is already building two national medical vaccine facilities. What's the deal here? Elaine Grossman explains at the Global Security Newswire that the story is wrapped up in a budget document being drafted for OSD discussions.

"To implement the DOD response to the president's new [vaccine] initiative requires $1.07 billion" between fiscal 2012 and 2016, states the defense memo, obtained by Global Security Newswire.

The money was taken out of a wide variety of programs deemed "essential" for combating weapons of mass destruction, the document states. An additional $442 million was trimmed through efficiency reductions mandated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for a total of $1.5 billion cut from the counter-WMD account over the five-year period, according to the draft memo.

U.S. nuclear, biological and chemical preparedness efforts "cannot absorb the entire reduction without delaying both current and future force readiness by approximately six to nine years," states the memo.

Defense Department projects under the budget-cutting ax include the development and acquisition of biological and chemical detection systems; gear to decontaminate skin and equipment after exposure; systems to coordinate military operations in a chem-bio environment; and protective clothing for military personnel entering toxic areas, the document indicates.

It's an amazing thing. If the President really believes we need all three national medical vaccine facilities to "counter biological threats" as detailed in his national strategy, you'd think that DOD could find a lousy billion dollars without taking it out of other chem-bio defense programs. I mean, shift a Navy ship one year, and you got a billion dollars. Cut two F35 planes, and you got a billion dollars. But no, it doesn't appear that the OSD leadership places the same value in the president's priority to find new dollars for this facility (even as it pushes for a 1-2 percent increase of funds in the budget). Industry, however, is very interested.

Plans call for Health and Human Services to open "several" vaccine development and manufacturing centers and for the Defense Department to open a single facility, either through new construction or refurbishment of existing buildings, according to Robin Robinson, director of the HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

Health and Human Services will spend $478 million on building multiple facilities while the Defense Department will allocate $200 million to construct its lone site, Robinson said in a Wednesday phone interview. Both agencies are likely to release industry solicitations by the end of the year for long-term contracts to build and operate the facilities, he said.

By the end of 2011, 10-year-or-longer contracts should be signed for the HHS and defense facilities, Robinson said. Each center will be owned and operated by its respective contractor -- perhaps a university consortium with a pharmaceutical firm -- and will be located in the United States, he said.

Yes, the pharmaceutical industry is very interested. I respect that DHHS wants to create an ability to address the pandemic flu quickly and more efficiently than it has in the past. I just don't get why DOD is adding to this capability. It's not the right agency to add to DHHS's vaccine facilities, but instead should collaborate on research and development efforts leading to better biological warfare agent vaccines. Let DHHS do the natural disease countermeasures. Hopefully OSD will figure out this rather obvious point.

UPDATE: Let me clarify the last paragraph - while the DOD Defense Health Program is an appropriate agency to address "emerging infectious diseases" and to collaborate with DHHS (as it is with this planned facility), it is misguided to execute this project within the DOD CB defense program's budget.

 

 

I have been actually consumed with other affairs and didn't see The Speech last night. So I'm just going to take Spencer Ackerman's critical assessment of the speech. He notes:

“I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page.” Actually, he already has. From 2002 to 2008, the Iraq war was perhaps the most politically contentious issue in American public life. In February 2009, starting with the Camp LeJeune speech — pfft. It’s done. And it’s an unheralded political success. You read the Wolfowitz and Bolton op-eds today? Neither of them can really bite the bullet and say that we should remain in Iraq, waging a war, and so they strain to find an actual critique of Obama’s approach. They’re like the sort of arguments “against” the war that Tom Daschle or Dick Gephardt used to make — signaling they hate the president, fearful of getting on the wrong side of an issue.

If Obama hadn’t embraced Petraeus and Odierno, and let them basically spend 2009 without meaningful troop withdrawals, that might not have happened, and we might have been arguing about Iraq for the past 18 months — which is to say for the past eight uninterrupted years. 

I get the feeling that President Obama wants to draw down Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible without getting smeared with the "dirty Democrats lost the war again" label. It may be a difficult task, but I don't think that the Vietnam splash is going to work this time. That doesn't mean that the Republicans won't try as hard as they could to use 1970s generalizations to tar this president. Let's see if the American public is smarter than that.

I saw a twitter by Dr. Steve Metz in response to some neocon nonsensical statement: "Everyone agrees that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. That doesn't mean that the invasion made strategic sense."

UPDATE: I like the Bobblespeak Translations' version better than the original.

Those poor Iraqi kids. Who’s going to keep them supplied with new soccer balls after we leave? Will the poor things have to go back to eating Iraqi food after all the Hershey bars run out? (Cue Sally Struthers). And what will happen to all those adorable puppies American G.I.s adopted as pets that get left behind? (Cue Sarah McLachlan.) The entire planet knows Obama’s “fulfilled promise” to end the U.S. combat mission was an exercise in sleight-of-tongue Neo-speak, and all signs indicate that the December 2011 status of forces agreement (SOFA) deadline by which all U.S. troops are supposed to leave Iraq has already gone the way of the pay phone. The desensitizing phase of the propaganda offensive designed to turn the citizenry apathetic to the warmongery’s next escapade has been in effect for some time. It was clear back in February 2009, long after the SOFA exit deadline had been established, that Ray “Desert Ox” Odierno announced, via David Petraeus hagiographer Tom Ricks, his desire to see 30,000 to 35,000 troops remain in Iraq until 2014 or 2015. More recently, Odie has suggested that theU.N. establish a new Iraq occupation mandate once the SOFA expires, one that will be supported by the same personnel that supported the old U.N. occupation mandate, i.e., U.S. troops. Odie didn’t mention the part about the U.S. having to provide the troops. It must have slipped his mind. Lapdog-of-war Ryan Crocker, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, has been yodeling onto the echo chamber of late about why we need to prolong our stay in Iraq and why we can. In a recent New York Times “news analysis” piece, Crocker told emerging star of the Long War steno pool Tim Arango that even as the SOFA deadline was negotiated, plans were in place to renegotiate it. “For a very long period of time we’re going to be on the ground, even if it’s solely in support of its U.S. weapons systems,” Crocker told Arango. That way talks Crocker apparently all the time – a reflecting of it is how convoluted the pretzel logic he for his Pentarch* pals makes about why more war need we. The weapons systems Crocker refers to aren’t required to keep militants, insurgents, and the local al-Qaeda trademark violators under control. According to a Pentagon press release reproduced by Liz Sly in the Los Angeles Times, “commanders” say “they are reasonably confident in the Iraqi security forces’ ability to keep order while facing insurgents or other internal threats.” But when it comes to Iraq’s capacity to protect itself against attacks from other nations, Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, commander of the U.S. military training program in Iraq, says it is “inconceivable” that the Iraqi army will be able to stand alone by the end of 2011. The “defend Iraq from its neighbors” argument is as specious as the rest of the “buy our war” hucksterism we’ve heard since Shock and Awe blew back in our national face. It’s inconceivable that any country, after having watched the best-trained, best-equipped, best-paid, best-fed, best-publicized, best-entertained armed force in the history of humanity get its turrets blown off for seven years, would be in any rush to embark on a comparable escapade. If a war wonk like the hideous Max Boot tells you things will work out differently when a Muslim country invades Iraq, he’s trying to get his mitts on something you keep in your pants. No matter which of its neighbors might invade it, Iraq possesses at least one major religious and/or ethnic faction that will hate the new occupiers as much as they hated us, and thanks to “King David” Petraeus, every faction is armed to the canines because he bribed them all not to shoot each other by giving them all guns. So if any of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors decide to invade them, they’ll be up to their ammo belts in Mahdi Army and Badr Brigade. If the Persian Shi’ite Iranians invade, they’ll be swarmed by more Sons of Iraq, Sahwas, Concerned Local Citizens, Very Worried Iraqis, Awakening Movers, and other Sunni militiamen than you can sheikh a stick at. If the Turks decide to attack the Kurds in northern Iraq, then… Oh, wait; they’ve already done that. In fact the Kurds in Iraq (specifically the Kurdish Workers Party) and the Turks have been in an open war with each other since 1984. We’ve barely noticed that conflict, despite having been involved in at least three (depending how you count them) Iraq wars in that time frame, one on Iraq’s side (the Iran-Iraq War) and the others – Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Desert Sword, Desert Saber, Granby, Daquet, Locust, Friction, Southern Watch, Northern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, Infinite Justice, New Dawn, Telec, Falconer, and the rest – against Iraq. Even if one of Iraq’s neighbors were crazy enough to want to prove it’s as crazy as we are, it couldn’t. The nations in that region simply don’t possess the kind of operational reach or strategic depth it takes to move into and occupy a country as large as Iraq for any length of time. Our Mesopotamian Mistake has nearly broken us in half economically. Imagine what a similar shenanigan would to a pismire like Syria. That’s where arguments that the absence of U.S. military power in West Asia will lead to a widespread regional war break down. The powers in that region, to use the term “powers” generously, can’t support a war that big, no matter how many killer gizmos we sell them. Sure, there might be a temporary uptick in border skirmishing if we vacate the subcontinent, but that sort of fighting has been going on in the Muslim world since Lawrence of Arabia created the camel cavalry back in World War I. Liz Sly tells us, “The gravest concern may be Iraq’s inability to defend its airspace.” Fortunately for Iraq, we’ve agreed to sell them 18 shiny new F-16 fighter jets for that purpose. Alas, the poor dumb Iraqi pilots won’t be able to fly the pretty things by themselves for a time so long we’re not sure just how long a time it will be. “I would say we’re five years into a 10-15 year program,” says Brig. Gen. Scott Hanson, who heads the U.S. mission in charge of training the Iraqi air force. “We’re on a glide path, but we’re not in the final stages of approach,” Brigadier Scotty adds. What a steaming pile of wild-blue balderdash. Conventional combat air power, specifically aerial bombing, seldom rises in significance above the tactical level of war. It is merely, to borrow from Clausewitz, a continuation of terrorism by vertical means. Once we move into the nuclear arena, post-Clausewitzian paradigms and other art-of-war mumbo jumbo kicks in and air power becomes a predominant strategic factor. But arcane nuclear warfare theories lose relevance when you consider that only one country in the region we’re talking about is capable of delivering a nuclear air strike, and I’d just love to see Charles Krauthammer go on Fox News and explain that we need a permanent military presence in the Middle East to protect all the Muslim countries from Israel. *Pentarchs are the oligarchs of the Pentarchy, that cabal of sandbox generals,bathtub admirals, beltway bandits, AIPAC rats, Warlord Fauntleroys, New American Centurions, Long War legislators, Dr. Strangeloves, G.I. Joe Six-Packs,Pavlov’s dogs of war, and other patriotic psychopaths whose narrow self interests and well-funded efforts have made the long dreamed-of permanent American security state a reality. Originally posted @ Antiwar.com.

There was a recent flap over an Army lieutenant colonel who was on a deployment to Afghanistan when he was fired and sent home for an article he submitted - without command authorization. Oops. In the article, he blasted the Powerpoint Rangers whom he saw working so hard in Kabul. Tom Ricks allowed the gentleman to reflect and amend his earlier observations, and I caught this point about Powerpoint:

One of the main themes of the article involved the use of PowerPoint. I don't hate PowerPoint. In fact, I use it often. I do object to its use as a crutch or a replacement for serious thinking. Also, the overuse of PowerPoint can give the illusion of progress, when it is really only motion in the form of busy work. It can confuse the volume of information with the quality of information.

A second theme was the way in which organizations function and why they don't e.g. stovepipes, ad hoc or absent processes, run-away egos or adding bodies as a solution to every problem.

Just to make the point, don't hate the tool, hate the messengers. If you're an officer trying to look busy and want to impress the boss with misleading statistics, sure, Powerpoint's your tool. But that should reflect more on the poor training and intentions of the officer, not the abilities of the tool.

Michael O'Hanlon is confused, and that's not a new thing. He's confused a great deal of the time, and yet the Washington Post reporters still flock to ask his opinion on national security issues. No matter how many times he's wrong, misguided, or confused, he will get quoted. It's an amazing thing. In this case, he's concerned that President Obama should not be telling the American people that combat operations in Iraq are over. 

"Maybe he's entitled to the partial victory lap, but this is not the right moment for it," said analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who has been critical of both Democratic and Republican approaches to the war. "If I were him, I'd wait until we have an Iraqi government, and do it with the Iraqis together."

O'Hanlon said he was "confused about the planned Oval Office speech." It could raise unrealistic expectations among the public about the chances for calm in Iraq, he said. And the timing of the pullout of combat troops may be seen as having more to do with the president's political needs than with real signs of progress on the ground.
 -------
"The president and this administration are making good on our commitment to end the war in Iraq responsibly and to help build a stable, self-reliant and sovereign Iraq," Blinken said. Biden, who made his his sixth trip to Iraq to participate in the "change of mission" ceremony, planned to give Iraqi leaders a preview of the president's speech, he said.

Ending combat in Iraq may help offset some concerns about Afghanistan, officials said. Even after deploying an additional 30,000 troops there - taking the total to nearly 100,000 - the reduction in Iraq means that about 30,000 fewer troops are serving "in harm's way" abroad, one administration official said. And the reduction frees up financial resources, including domestic funding for roads, bridges and schools - a point Obama will underscore. 

What O'Hanlon seems not to understand is that, yes, reducing troop numbers in Iraq and changing their combat mission there is inherently aligned with the president's political agenda. War is an extension of politics. Thus has it ever been. Adding troops to Afghanistan and pushing a more aggressive combat mission there is a political act. Now, as far as the timing of this announcement, come on. Announcing the end of combat operations in May 2003 was "not the right moment for it." Announcing the end of combat operations in 2010 after multiple national elections are held and a substantial investment in training and equipping Iraqi security forces? Much better.

O'Hanlon can't seem to make any positive comments about a Democratic administration, no matter how good the decision is. And yet he was always so effusively positive about the past administration, no matter how poorly its decisions were made. He's very confused. The troops returning home aren't confused about their enthusiasm to get the hell out of Iraq.

The UK Guardian reports that the Bush administration expressed "grave doubts" to Tony Blair about the suitability of Gordon Brown as the Prime Minister of England. 

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Brown is said to have "harangued" Rice, then secretary of state, over US policy on aid and development in Africa. Rice reportedly alerted the White House which passed on its concerns to Blair.

No date is give for the meeting with Rice, who became secretary of state at the start of Bush's second term in January 2005. Blair announced in the early autumn of 2006 that he would stand down before the time of the Labour conference in 2007, suggesting that Rice's comments were passed on in 2005 or 2006.
 -------
 Brown eventually became prime minister at the end of June 2007. A month later he visited Bush at Camp David, causing mild offence by briefing that he would not handle relations with the White House in the same way as his predecessor.

In contrast to the jeans sported by Blair for a Camp David meeting with Bush, Brown made a point of wearing a suit and tie for his joint press conference. Bush addressed Brown as Gordon who then replied "Mr President". Brown described their discussions as "full and frank". 

Yes, good thing no world leader ever expressed "grave doubts" about the US government's leadership between 2001-2009... Hat tip to Ray!

It's a sad thing when Admiral Eric Olson, the commander of the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM), admits that his dance card is so full that he can't commit forces to what President Obama calls the gravest national security risk - nuclear terrorism. It's not as grim as the article first sounds. It's more of a case where a general/flag officer decides that he has to obtain increased technology to augment the lack of personnel available.

Fewer elite commandos are available for the hunt and their expertise has been degraded by “the decreased level of training,” Admiral Eric Olson said. They now have only a “limited” capability for this mission, he said.

Meanwhile, the threat of extremists acquiring and using chemical, biological or nuclear arms “is greater now than at any other time in history,” Olson told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a written response to a question posed by lawmakers after a hearing March 16 on his command’s budget.
 ----------
 In his unreleased guidance, Gates cited the need to “fully fund” technologies for disposing of explosive ordnance, destroying “ultra-high performance” concrete that might shelter WMD production or storage sites and disabling “control systems” for “state-run weapons production facilities.”

The proposed budget for the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency that develops these capabilities increases to $113 million in 2015 from $61.3 million in fiscal 2010.

The agency’s fiscal 2011 plan calls for continuing to develop and field “new technologies to improve” the commandos’ “ability to detect, disable, interdict, neutralize and destroy chemical, biological and nuclear production, storage and weaponization facilities.”

SOCOM hasn't really been paying attention to WMD terrorism for the past decade. They used to be much more focused on counterproliferation issues - but that was when we had Saddam as a threat. Since no WMDs were found in Iraq in 2003, business has been kind of slow in the counterproliferation area (for SOCOM at least). Now that business is drying up in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't have WMD sites, SOCOM and DTRA need to invent a new threat. It would be nice to actually find terrorists who are developing CBRN production, storage, and weaponization facilities. Until then, we can all pretend that we need these new technologies that don't work to defeat a threat that doesn't exist.

And I'm shocked, shocked to find out that it's a middle-aged, disgruntled white man from a red state who sent President Obama a "white powder" letter.

A man from the Denver area pleaded guilty Thursday to sending letters containing white powder to President Barack Obama, members of Congress from Colorado and Alabama, and Argentine consulates.

Jay DeVaughn, 41, of Aurora faced 13 federal counts of mailing threatening communications.
 --------
 He mailed a letter to Obama that was intercepted Sept. 10, 2009, according to court documents. The letter called health care reform championed by Obama and passed by Congress a "joke" and contained a plastic bag of white powder and a reference to anthrax.

The white powder in all the letters was harmless, but emergency personnel were called when the various offices received the mail, authorities said. 

Still no massive bioterrorist attack as predicted by the Graham-Talent comedy team.

 Last week we saw the Taliban's continued attacks against young girls' education in Afghanistan with poison gas. It's a particularly vile thing to do, but it's educational to note the amateur hour approach that they used.

 A total of 46 students and nine teachers were treated in hospital after what Mohammad Asif Nang, an official at the education ministry, described as "an apparent poisoning" attack by "the enemies of women's education".

According to staff, parents and onlookers, girls began fainting in the school's main classroom block at about 10.30 this morning, during the first of three daily shifts designed to triple the number of girls at the school.

Some victims had to be carried out while others stumbled to the school gates, where about 18 slumped to the ground unconscious, said Abdul Haq, a 15-year-old boy who witnessed the incident.
 -------
 Western medical experts have taken blood samples from alleged victims while investigating previous incidents but have been unable to find clear evidence of poisoning. They have also questioned how such an apparently powerful gas could be spread with such apparent ease round large school buildings.

This hasn't been the first gas attack on a school, and it's unclear what kind of non-persistent industrial chemical was pumped into the schools. But it's a far cry from the feared terrorist use of chemical warfare agents that most DHS scenarios warn about.

UPDATE: George Smith suggests that the Taliban used fumigants. Good suggestion as any.

In a stunning announcement yesterday, Admiral Mike Mullen told the Detroit Economic Club that the national debt had replaced nuclear terrorism as the greatest threat to national security.

The single biggest threat to national security is the national debt, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday, underscoring the importance of good fiscal stewardship and a need to stimulate economic growth.

American taxpayers are going to pay an estimated $600 billion in interest on the national debt in 2012, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told local leaders and university students here.

Mullen explained to the group that the Joint Staff and OSD had undertaken an analysis of the enemy and discovered that the 9% average annual growth in the defense budget between 2000 and 2009 had made the Defense Department the largest source of discretionary spending contributing to the national debt. As such, he intends to focus his full energy and plans on defeating the Defense Department.**

"Our plan is two-fold," he explained. "We intend to ask Congress to increase spending on major defense acquisition programs so that we can defeat the national debt within the DOD budget. We will develop a counterinsurgency operation by employing military veterans who have been released from active duty. Their skills and life experiences will be key to infiltrating and taking out the major state actors who are increasing defense funding and thus the national debt and its threat to America. We expect this to be a long-term contingency operation, possibly running up to 2016 before we see positive results."

Mullen alluded to the "Oil Spot" theory in the execution of this plan. "We intend to attack OSD acquisition first, and take out the key people who are ignoring the spiraling costs and extended schedules of the major defense acquisition programs. We can ignore OSD policy, they're just the propaganda arm of the defense budget. As we hold our position, we'll expand by attacking into the Congressional staffers' strongholds in the Armed Services Committees. That battle will rival Fallujah 2004, I think. It will be bloody. We don't expect to win over the defense industry partners, they're long-term fanatics and well-funded, but we think we can negotiate with them from a position of strength at that time."

More on this new military initiative against the national debt as it continues.

** Following paragraphs are actually creative fiction (Hey, the punch lines just write themselves. Truly)

TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults

The io9 site has a pretty good list of 25 sci-fi movies that should be on everyone's "must watch" list and a short discussion on why they made the list. I only have a few changes in mind. Not crazy about insisting people watch the ones before 1965 - let's keep it within the same generation. And some of them are a little too new. But it's a pretty good list.

Metropolis (1927, dir. Fritz Lang)

The Day The Earth Stood Still 1951, dir. Robert Wise)

Forbidden Planet (1956, dir. Fred M. Wilcox)

Planet Of The Apes (1968, dir. Franklin J. Schaffner)

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

Logan’s Run (1976, dir. Michael Anderson) [my add]

Close Encounters (1977, dir. Stephen Spielberg) [my add]

Star Wars – A New Hope (1977, dir. George Lucas) [my add]

Alien (1979, dir. Ridley Scott)

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980, dir. Irvin Kerschner)

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981, dir. George Miller)

Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982, dir. Nicholas Meyer)

Blade Runner (1982, dir. Ridley Scott)

E.T. (1982, dir. Steven Spielberg)

Tron (1982, dir. Steven Lisberger)

Terminator (1984, dir. James Cameron) [my add]

Back To The Future (1985, dir. Robert Zemeckis)

Brazil (1985, dir. Terry Gilliam)

RoboCop (1987, dir. Paul Verhoeven)

Akira (1988, Katsuhiro Otomo) [my add]

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991, dir. James Cameron)

Ghost In The Shell (1995, dir. Mamoru Oshii)

Twelve Monkeys (1996, dir. Terry Gilliam) [my add]

Gattaca (1997, Andrew Niccol) [my add]

The Fifth Element (1997, Luc Besson) [my add]

The Matrix (1999, dir. the Wachowskis)

Equilibrium (2002, dir. Kurt Wimmer) [my add]

Primer (2004, dir. Brad Bird)

Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (2004, dir. Michel Gondry)

Serenity (2005, dir. Josh Whedon) [my add]

Children Of Men (2006, dir. Alfonso Cuarón)

Moon (2009, dir. Duncan Jones)

District 9 (2009, dir. Neill Blomkamp)

Inception (2010, dir. Christopher Nolan)

UPDATE: Don't ever cut and past from a Word 2007 document into a web browser. What a mess. Good suggestions from the comments, "Equilibrium" was a great film, as was "Fifth Element." In an effort to keep this to 25 titles, I'll have to let "Starship Troopers" and "E.T." get honorable mentions. Other films will no doubt join this list.

UPDATE 2: Due to continued beatings on "Galaxy Quest," (Never give up! Never surrender!) I give in and put it on the "honorable mention" list. "Akira" goes in, we do need some foreign films in this list. Gods, I forgot "Serenity"! Out goes "Back to the Future."

Read Fred Kaplan's article on how the US government still isn't developing a regional approach to solving the Afghanistan challenge and how Pakistan isn't really helping.

The Washington Post reveals that the CIA is recommending Yemen as the next objective on the War on Terror. Fortunately, they don't have any WMD programs there - just bad mixes of liquid explosive molded into underwear for suicide bombers. But once again, it's as if we're seeing the former Bush administration in charge of the response. The only tool in the kit seems to be military power. Notably, the CIA wants to move more assets into country.

Proponents of expanding the CIA's role argue that years of flying armed drones over Pakistan have given the agency expertise in identifying targets and delivering pinpoint strikes. The agency's attacks also leave fewer telltale signs.

"You're not going to find bomb parts with USA markings on them," the senior U.S. official said. Even so, the official said, the administration is considering sending CIA drones to the Arabian Peninsula "not because they require the deniability but because they desire the capability."

A senior Yemeni official indicated that the government would not welcome CIA drones. "I don't think we will ever consider it," the official said. "The situation in Yemen is different than in Afghanistan or Pakistan. It is still under control."

Introducing a covert CIA capability might also improve the U.S. ability to carry out attacks - perhaps from a U.S. base in Djibouti - if the Yemeni government were to curtail its cooperation. 

So seriously, we're going to bring the techniques from Afghanistan that haven't worked for the past five years, and see if they might work in another Muslim country where the popular opinion of American leadership is already pretty low? Yeah, that's just genius. I'm reminded of  Capt "Redlegs" Terrill in "The Outlaw Josey Wales":

Captain Terrill: "We got ’em now. We’ll get these two first, then we’ll get the others."
Fletcher (startled): "What others? Wales and the kid are the last ones."
Captain Terrill (dismissively): "Nahh. Texas is full of rebels. Lot’s of work to do down in Texas."
Fletcher (sternly): "We get Josey Wales and it ends."
Captain Terrill (grimly and with finality): "Doin’ right ain't got no end."

Really, time for a new approach to combat terrorism that works. Less short-term kinetic focus, more long-term "smart power" please.

Over at the Danger Room, Noah Shactman critically reviews the LA Sheriff's Department plans to use a version of the US military's Active Denial System in its prison system as a form of non-lethal crowd control. The title of his post is "Pain Ray, Rejected by the Military, Ready to Blast L.A. Prisoners." Yeah, that's not leading the readers on at all. I have to take exception with his one statement in particular.

The jail’s energy weapon is a small-scale version of the Active Denial System, the experimental crowd control device that the U.S. military brought to Afghanistan — and then quickly shipped back home, after questions mounted about the wisdom of blasting locals with a beam that momentarily puts them in agony. The pain weapon seemed at odds with the military’s efforts to appear more humane and measured in the eyes of the Afghan populace.

First of all, the military hasn't rejected the ADS, only its operational use in Afghanistan, and that was probably because they haven't ironed out the concept of operations enough to satisfy the nervous policy-makers in Washington DC. Second, using terms like "blasting locals with a beam that momentarily puts them in agony" really isn't a fair statement of the system's actual operation. It's not a firehose with only one setting - maximum force. And the key here really is "momentary." There is no persistent damage, and if the crowd disperses or drops to the ground, the operator can in fact turn the system off. It is, in the end, better than using burning CS powder, capsaicin pepper spray, or Claymore-like TASER systems on a crowd that includes combatants mixed with noncombatants.

Last, let's differentiate between statements about how "population-centric" counterinsurgency policy intends to provide a "more human and measured" focus on the Afghan population and the current record of how US military troops tend to view self-protection options at checkpoints and actual COIN operations. They tend to lead with the lethal force option and gripe when commanders impose overly-restrictive rules of engagement on their activities, because they don't like being shot at. So let's not mislead anyone about appearances and actual practice.

Non-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons have applications in both law enforcement and military operations. In both cases, successful use of such weapons requires detailed training, careful oversight, and focused application in the right circumstances. When that doesn't happen, then we see the news stories about the misuse of non-lethal technology. But there's nothing wrong about trying to use options other than guns, batons, and tear gas to minimize casualties while enforcing order - in the prisons by guards or in urban settings by the military.

It's a good thing that Marine Corps General James Conway is ready to retire from his post as commandant of the Marine Corps. He's obviously uncomfortable with this administration's efforts, as evidenced by many recent, public comments. I admire most Marine Corps general officers, but Conway is really trying to be the exception to the rule. Here he is making the case that our military operations in Afghanistan should remain open-ended and without concern about little things like progress and wasted billions of dollars.

Gen Conway, who just returned from Afghanistan, said he is concerned the date may signal to the Taliban that the US was preparing to wind down the war.

"In some ways we think right now it's probably giving our enemy sustenance. We think that he may be saying to himself, in fact we've intercepted communications that say, 'Hey, we only have to hold out for so long,'" Gen Conway told a Pentagon news conference.

"I honestly think it will be a few years before conditions on the ground are such that turnover will be possible for us," he said of Marines in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar.

Really, general? You really want to undercut the SecDef and President's public comments on this issue on your way out the door? Bad enough that we have to listen to this crap about "emboldening the enemy by announcing an end-date" again. Funny, we're leaving Iraq after two stated deadlines (one from Bush, one from Obama) and it hasn't fallen apart (yet). Conway really expands the civil-military relationship gap by his refusal to acknowledge the supremacy of political decisions over military affairs. He's certainly not alone in this myopic view that, if the military were only allowed to perform without restrictions, they could wrap things up nicely. But nine years later, with about every existing metric still pointing toward failure, it's hard to believe that things will get better in the next few years if "American will doesn't falter."

And then there's Conway's decision to advocate for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, a system that can definitely be cast as the poster-child for the drastic need for DOD acquisition reform. And we're already aware of Conway's dislike of Teh Gays (to which Peter Feaver says "eh"). If General Conway is so hard-set against the administration's national security policies, then it's way past time that he step down from his four years as commandant of the Marine Corps and take up the private life. Then he can go on Faux News and preach all he wants to that adoring crowd.

A while ago, during a conference at the Army's war college, Prof Andrew Bacevich made a comment that the United States had a greater national security interest in the drug wars south of the border than in Afghanistan. He probably got a lot of criticism for that statement, but was he wrong? I don't think so. This AP article talks about the bullets that are flying over the river into El Paso.

At least eight bullets have been fired into El Paso in the last few weeks from the rising violence in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, one of the world's most dangerous places. And all American police can do is shrug because they cannot legally intervene in a war in another country. The best they can do is warn people to stay inside.

"There's really not a lot you can do right now," El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles said. "Those gun battles are breaking out everywhere, and some are breaking out right along the border."

Police say the rounds were not intentionally fired into the U.S. But wildly aimed gunfire has become common in Juarez, a sprawling city of shanty neighborhoods that once boomed with manufacturing plants. It's ground zero in Mexico's relentless drug war.

There is an amusing side to this story (in a twisted kind of way). Of all people, Governor Rick "Let Us Secede From the Union" Perry is losing his cool and is calling for the federales to come save him from the border war. He thinks that there are bombs going off in El Paso (actually not happening). Again, back to the AP article:

And Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued a statement demanding more security.

"It's time for Washington to stop the rhetoric and immediately deploy a significant force of personnel and resources to the border to protect our homeland," Perry said.

Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said the governor believes that more security - in the form of federal agents and even troops - could all but shut down the border to smuggling and help put Mexico's warring cartels out of business.

No, it's not that simple, Gov. Perry. You don't get to bad-mouth the federal government only when it's politically convenient. You don't get to refuse federal stimulus funds and make wild statements about "state rights" and then turtle up when the shots start firing. As governor, you have the ability to move National Guard troops down to the border - go do it. Send some Tea Party militias and Minutemen people, too. Make sure they're well-armed - well, I guess you don't need to do that, they already are. So where are your balls, big man? Are you running a self-sufficient Republic or is Texas actually part of the Union?

Just another example of Republican governors who can't stop running to the federal treasury while badmouthing the current administration's attempts to govern. Same shit, different day.