Arr, Matey

I love that somebody finally stood up to the pirates in Somalia.  First, the crew took back control of their ship, and then the US Navy used SEAL sharpshooters to kill the remaining pirates when it looked like they were going to kill the captain of the Maersk Alabama.  There are two reasons that piracy is suddenly all the vogue in the Horn of Africa.  One is that massive amounts of cargo and oil go through the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aden is a natural chokepoint.  The second is that resistance is light and rewards are big.  In exchange for holding people, they got a payoff from the companies who's cargo they were holding.  That's a pretty sweet deal.
Now things have just been taken up a notch.  While pirates have said that they would perhaps start killing crew, everybody's asking the US Navy for help.  Rather than the Navy, the shipping companies should help themselves.  The first step would be to actually arm a ship.  A good first step is a small arms locker with assault rifles and the like combined with training for the crews.  A better move, in my opinion, would be to forgoe half measures like that.  The pirates would still be able to outgun the crew of a vessel, and that would just lead to a lot of killing on the high seas.  Instead, because there are 2 locations where piracy is a big issue - the Gulf of Aden and Indonesia, I would contract with a PMC (i.e. mercenaries like Blackwater) to provide security on board in those areas.  It would be a short term issue where you could airlift some personnel to the deck and then back off.  This way you don't have to pay for them to be onboard when they aren't needed.  In conjunction with this would be some serious security measures - vulcan cannons, surface to surface missiles (or RPGs - nothing too big), and other heavy arms to force the pirates to either give up piracy, look for softer targets, or spend the money to buy more serious weapons.  I think you might find some who get in an arms race, but the majority couldn't outspend a corporation and after some serious losses, you might find piracy dying back down again.  I don't know why they haven't done this yet, but it's the most immediate solution I can think of that should solve the problem (at least for that shipping company).

Goading the Bear

It looks like the Soviet Union is back.  Not in Communist form, but rather as a quasi-Capitalist bully of nations around it.  They are currently invading former Soviet state Georgia under a somewhat false pretense - protecting Russian citizens in two breakaway Georgian provinces.  These Russian citizens are actually Georgian citizens who were given Russian citzenship, ostensibly to give the Russians pretext for an attack.  With Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili heading the most pro-US government among former Soviet states, it seems like he is being targeted as an example to others to not mess with the Russians.
The way I see it, the US has a couple of options.  1. Jawbone the Russians to death.  This is what the US is currently doing, and it's not doing one thing.  2. Help the Georgians.  This isn't just giving them daily affirmations, this is actually putting bodies on the ground.  We have over 100,000 troops in theater right now, along with USAF squadrons and carrier battle groups.  These are assets that we could use to protect Georgia's sovereignty.  Of course, they would have to have an extremely limited mandate.  We wouldn't want to have A-10 Warthogs attacking troop columns within Russia or else something regional will suddenly turn into World War III.  Because of the current position of the front lines though, that shouldn't be an issue.  I think I would let the Russians know that if they don't pull back to South Ossetia, Russia, and Abkhazia, we would attack their front lines.  Of course, this isn't something that will ever happen because we're not willing to fight Russia to protect Georgia.  Sen. McCain said we should at least take Russia out of the G-8 in a symbolic slap in the face.  In addition, Sen. Obama called for stopping their entry into the WTO, another good step.  I think that's the minimum that we have to do.  We could also immediately add Ukraine and Georgia to NATO.  That should stop them thanks to NATO's mutual defense pact.  That is highly unlikely because it's committing the nations of Europe to a path of possible war with Russia, which would come with some serious complications, but perhaps they don't want to be the 21st Century's Neville Chamberlain.
The other former Soviet nations have another, and far more serious problem.  Georgia is the first, and others will follow.  Will we see a return to the pre-1991 boundaries of Russia?  We'll certainly see those republics fall back under Russian sway, if only in the form of a new Warsaw Pact.  If they want to stay independent, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, and the rest should leap to the defense of Georgia by declaring war on Russia.  With that many fronts and that much territory to cover, you can believe that the Russian bear would back down.  It's easy to pick on a small country in the Caucuses, it's another thing all together to fight a war on multiple fronts covering thousands of miles.

Defensive Preemption

I came across this yesterday. It's a policy paper I wrote for my National Security class. I wrote it a scant week before we invaded Iraq, so it should be looked at in that light. Even with the problems we've had in Iraq and the complete collapse of popular support for George Bush and the Bush Doctrine, I think that a lot of the salient points in my paper still hold. For the record, I believe that the Iraq occupation was bungled, not so much the war (and we're seeing the results of a good occupation with the increasingly good news from Iraq now). Warning: this paper is long and full of good old timey Neocon doctrine. There might be some minor typos due to the OCR and I didn't attach the bibliography, but it is available (if you really cared). I think Francis Fukuyama would be proud.

During the Cold War, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was not a terribly serious concern. It was important to try and halt, however, the greater problem of a threat of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union instead of focusing on proliferation. As a result of the end of the Cold War and the United States becoming the only superpower in the world, stopping the hemorrhaging has become paramount. This is reflected in the National Security Strategy of the United States. In the NSS, it says that we will

[maintain] the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place ofthe enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively (Bush 2002, 15).

The first move toward challenging the United States is to attempt to get on a level playing ground. The United States has a military that is more advanced than any other on earth. As a result of the humongous technological gap between the United States and other nations, the only way they can challenge our might is by deterring us. Because we outspend all other nations in defense spending, and because our military is equipped to handle any other military on the planet, the only hope other nations have of deterring the United States is through weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In the past, the US has shown that it can be deterred by a strong nuclear power. This was the case with the Soviet Union, and it is currently the case with North Korea.
As a result of these deterrents, the United States has to walk a very fine line. Doing what appears to be right and doing what needs to be done are no longer necessarily the same thing. There are several problems that arise when nations get WMD. The first problem is that they have complete control over their domestic situation. If there are purges, genocide, or other domestic problems, the United States cannot do anything about it without fear of a retaliatory WMD strike. This is the case in North Korea right now. Kim long Il's people are starving, but the United States cannot do anything to help them (along the lines of regime change) without fearing for the safety of Seoul, Japan, or the West Coast. The second problem is that these dictators can threaten the regional balance of power by either attempting to become a regional hegemon or disrupting the current balance of power, leading to an arms race that could have disastrous consequences.
An instance of the United States attacking a nation with a WMD program already exists. In 1991, we attacked Iraq in the first Persian Gulf War, and we saw what could be done by a dictator with WMD. Without apparent reason, other than merely punishing the US-led forces for liberating Kuwait, Saddam Hussein "[buried] thousands of chemical and biological weapons in Southern Iraq, at Basra, Nasiriyah, Simawa, Diwaniya, and Hilla, the likely routes of the Allied invasion" (Hamza 2000,244). These were blown up according to standard US procedure, blowing a lethal cocktail of chemical and biological gasses onto the attacking Allies, defending Iraqi forces, and the Shiites of Southern Iraq. This is known in the US as "Gulf War Syndrome." There was no warning of this; it was merely a doomsday device to punish those who Saddam saw as his enemies. While this seems irrational to us, it was a rational decision for Saddam. Because we cannot tell what is rational to these regimes, they are unpredictable. This inherently unpredictable nature of totalitarian leaders is something that the presence of WMD merely exacerbates.
Because our current nuclear arsenal is a product of the Cold War, most of our nuclear weapons are larger than 500 kilotons. This extensive city-busting arsenal is an ineffective deterrent against the smaller regional powers in the post-Cold War era, and as a result, many have called for smaller nuclear weapons as a more realistic deterrent (Larsen 2002, 133). While this will certainly deter states who have already crossed the WMD threshold (especially states that have nuclear capabilities), it does not address the problem of states developing WMD. Clearly, if the threat of US retaliation is not powerful enough for them to stop before they have these weapons, then mere deterrence
is not enough. To stop the proliferation of WMD, a different path must be chosen.
As is stated in the NSS, the United States must be more proactive in stopping the proliferation of WMD. Primarily, we would deal with only rogue states and not our allies. For example, if the emerging nuclear threat in North Korea is such that Japan no longer feels safe under the US nuclear umbrella, then they should be allowed to develop WMD as a counterweight to North Korea.
Of course, allowing our current allies to develop WMD presents some problems. First, it is a dual standard. While that is the case, common sense would say that a nation like Japan -primarily an economic power, with a pacific people would not become an aggressor if they got WMD. It would send a message that it was better to be the friend of the United States instead of the enemy, because we will tum our heads when you develop WMD. This was the case in the early eighties, when the French sold Iraq a nuclear reactor capable of making weapons-grade plutonium and very nearly sold them 58 pounds of enriched uranium, enough to make two nuclear weapons (Hamza 2000, 105 and 133).
This leads to the second problem: that alliances are never made up of permanent states with the similar interests, but rather of transient states with similar interests. When Iraq began pursuing their nuclear weapons program, they were allied with the west, and that alignment became even closer following the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. If the French had been successful in selling uranium to the Iraqis (they were pressured to withdraw by the United States and Israel) (Hamza 2000, 133), or if Israel had not destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981 (Hamza 2000, 128-130), Iraq would have had a nuclear deterrent when their alliance with the United States ended before the Persian Gulf War. This is the bigger problem of the two, however, if we took into account a variety of things like the threat presented to the country, type of government, etc, we could allow some allies to develop a deterrent force if necessary.
Ultimately, the United States would be helped the most by protecting our allies and helping them feel secure under our umbrella. This could be done in several ways, including mutual defense pacts, a la NATO. A corollary to this would be a promise from the United States to prevent nations from getting weapons of mass destruction, by preemptive force if necessary. Preemption, though, poses some difficulties. One is that we would need to know where the WMD programs and/or warheads were (Haass 1999, 52). Another is the problems the US faces from launching an attack. Either we attack without warning, as Israel did in the 1967 Six Days' War and against the Osirak reactor in 1981, or else we drag out a long bout of diplomacy with a buildup of troops and forces, followed by an attack, either via a traditional mix of ground and air attack, or by other means.
Critics of preemption would cite the diplomatic dance as the most troublesome step. Infiltrating enemy WMD programs would primarily be accomplished by giving the CIA greater latitude in dealing with people, including getting rid of restrictions like not allowing the Agency to hire criminals for field work. Once that was accomplished, and our combination of human intelligence (HUMINT) and signal intelligence (SIGINT) via satellites, phone taps, and so on was good enough, we would run into our main problem. As Philip Zelekow says, the United States cannot preemptively attack a nuclear program while it is in its infancy. We are too powerful a nation, and the world would condemn our actions because at that point in a nuclear program it is vulnerable to both negotiation and military action. The reaction to the United States taking out another nation's WMD program would be even more outraged than it was over Israel destroying Osirak in 1981 (Blackwell and Carnesale 1993, 167-168). By the time it was justified, the program would be too far along, and the United States would be powerless to stop it.
I would submit that while some of this may be accurate, it does not matter in the end. Instead of endless rounds of diplomacy and a drawn out buildup, it would behoove us to attack without a force buildup. The United States could and should weather the diplomatic firestorm that would accompany such a strike. As was the case with the outrage against Israel in 1967 and again in 1981, it would occupy the focus of the world for just a little bit, and then nations would move on, secretly happy that there was not another nuclear power on the planet.
This would work for emerging nuclear powers, like Iran and Iraq, however, for nations like North Korea, who have been developing nuclear weapons and ICBMs and are close to major metropolitan areas, it would not. North Korea is another situation all together. Assuming the United States was able to destroy all of its nuclear arsenal, either through covert means like SEALs or Delta Force, or through pinpoint bombing from our B-2 Spirits, we would still have the problem of 600,000 troops stationed thirty miles from Seoul, a city of some twenty million people. Any attack on North Korea's nuclear program would certainly be used as a pretext for them to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War, and they would move on the South.
Another problem that North Korea poses is their willingness to provide other -I nations with missile and nuclear technology. Noted foreign affairs analyst Mansoor Ijaz suspected that North Korea may even be using, or will use in the future, Abu Sayyaf pirates to ferry nuclear material and technology to other nations (Ijaz 2003). Because Abu Sayyaf is a terrorist group with ties to al Qaeda, this is a disturbing development and a clear threat to national security. Ultimately, because of the threat that North Korea represents, diplomacy is the least bad option. If diplomacy breaks down, however, the United States should be prepared to launch a preemptive strike on the North Korean nuclear program and on the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that separates the North from the South. Because of the depth and dynamics of the North Korean defenses, the United States should not rule out the use of either bunker busting nuclear capabilities or a third generation neutron bomb solution. By using a neutron bomb, fallout would be kept to a minimum, the neutrons from the blast would penetrate the network of North Korean
caves, and it would punch a significant hole in North Korean defenses on the DMZ.
Of course, most nations are not as hard a case as North Korea. Of the current nations who are trying to, or have tried to acquire nuclear weapons, none has the perfect storm of a large army, nuclear weapons, and proximity to valuable targets that North Korea has. With Libya, Iraq, and Iran, among other nations, the United States could launch a preemptive strike without endangering their neighbors. This could even be accomplished without using nuclear weapons because we would not need to take out large numbers of deterrent forces along with their WMD program.
While we should avoid using them unless it is absolutely necessary, it is a sad fact that nuclear weapons may be needed to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That being said, the United States cannot stand by and wait for things to get more dangerous. Appeasement has been tried by major powers, from the British and French in 1936-1938 to the United States and South Korea in 1994 to the French, Russians, and Germans in 2002-2003. Ultimately, if we are not willing to use force to coerce nations into complying with international law, that law will be meaningless and other nations will follow in their footsteps. Especially in the shadow of September 11, we must take a hard line on proliferation, with or without the support of the rest of the world. We have seen what happens when we do not make the tough decisions, and if we continue to shirk these lesser decisions, we risk fighting a war or enduring a terrorist attack that is so destructive that it defies the imagination.

He Has His Reward

The Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web had an interesting post yesterday. Barak Obama went to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and inserted a prayer, as is tradition among Jews. He's not Jewish, so it's just a nice photo op and a chance to say "look, I love Israel too!" (I'm not criticizing him in this aspect - if you're a politician and you end up in Jerusalem, or even within 500 miles of Jerusalem, you get that photo op.) However, that's where it gets a little dicey. From Taranto:

This set off a bit of a kerfuffle, as the Israeli newspaper Maariv published the prayer, purportedly filched by a seminary student. IsraelInsider.com has the text:
Lord--
Protect my family and me.
Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair.
Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just.
And make me an instrument of your will.
Haaretz reports that "Jerusalem lawyer Shahar Alon asked Attorney General Menachem Mazuz yesterday to order a police investigation into the removal and publication of Obama's note":
"By making the note public," Alon wrote to Mazuz, "Maariv violated the law protecting holy sites, several clauses in the penal code and also infringed upon the basic rights of a person's honor and freedom."
Alon also initiated a boycott of the newspaper. . . .
Maariv's response: "Obama's note was published in Maariv and other international publications following his authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem. Moreover, since he is not Jewish, there is no violation of privacy as there would be for a Jewish person who places a note in the wall."
Thus, as IsraelInsider puts it, "what initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign." Obama's so-called prayer was at best an open letter to God--a sentiment intended for public, not divine, consumption.

Now, from Matthew 6: 5-6

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

I think that about sums up my opinion as well.

Pressing the Advantage

Who said that giving no quarter to your enemies didn't work? After decades of failed attempts by the Colombian government to eradicate the Marxist rebel group FARC, it looks like it might collapse after the surrender of (some of) its leaders yesterday. This has to be heartening news to the Bush Administration give its current struggles in Iraq and the support they've given President Uribe. It's great to see that something is actually happening in Colombia. They've had decades of low-level guerrilla action that led to such 80s classics as the movie Romancing the Stone and the Tom Clancy novel Clear and Present Danger, but even with the pop culture contribution, it's been a tough and bad road for the Colombians. Part of that has been their own fault. Successive administrations weren't tough enough on FARC and there is a very real level of public support for these Marxist groups. For some reason they are extraordinarily popular in South America. Be it their populist rhetoric, their actual beliefs, or the connection to Che Guevara, they've stuck around and thrived in many places. Nevertheless, I see this as almost the end of their threat to Colombia. Even with the help of Hugo Chavez and his gang of banana republic dictators, Uribe has said no more and taken the fight to them across the borders if necessary. Eliminating that safe haven has really been one of the catalysts for this decision. If you can't hide, it's probably better to just surrender than to be wiped off the planet.

Tuesday Quick Hits

-I came across this little news story yesterday and all I have to say is that I hope it's going to be debunked. Al Pacino may be starring as the villain in the next Bond movie, Quantum of Solace. The problem here is that he doesn't fit the role at all. He's a fantastic actor, and I have loved him in so many of his movies (The Godfather I and II, Heat, Ocean's 13, etc), but this is not the film for him. Some of that might be because I'm too influenced by Frank Caliendo's impression of him, but after making the best Bond movie ever (#18 on my 50 Greatest Movies list), Casino Royale, I'd hate to have Daniel Craig be forced into making one of the potentially worst Bond movies ever.

-Fidel Castro's corpse gave up power in Cuba today. While his brother, Raul, is now in power (and has been for a while), this is a chance for the US to give up its counterproductive Cuban blockade. Let's open the country to US goods and services and let them see what capitalism will get them.
-What could be the final domino in the NBA trade season fell today when the Jason Kidd to Dallas for the Keith Van Horn pu-pu platter trade went through. The thing that blows my mind about this trade, other than the stupidity of it (and the Shaq-Matrix trade), is how long it's taken to get it finalized. First Devean George ensures that after this season is over, he'll be sent out of Dallas on a rail by refusing to be included in the trade so he won't renounce his Bird rights. My question is what good are those when Dallas won't re-sign you anyway? The answer: no good. Next, Jerry Stackhouse opens his big mouth and says he's going right back to Dallas, a giant middle finger to the NBA, which turns around and slams that finger in the car door. Finally, Dallas gathers together enough bad contracts, decent players, and bad players together to send them to the Nets and effectively double New Jersey's team size. I think at the end of the day Dallas and Phoenix aren't headed anywhere even with these emergency reaction trades. The interesting thing is that the Jazz started this with Kyle Korver back in December. KK is great, but these superstar deals are all a case of oneupsmanship that is a bit surprising to say the least.
-HD-DVD is dead, long live Blu-Ray! I'm glad there's finally a victor in the format wars because I've wanted to move to a next generation format for a couple of years. I always thought Sony would win (and said that putting the Blu-Ray player in the PS3 was a masterstroke, even though it crippled the console for at least a year), but it's nice to know if I buy a BR player I won't end up with the next Betamax.

Right In The Babymaker

One of the supposed great moments in the history of society has been the one child policy of China. It has essentially stopped the supposed overpopulation of China and now it looks like their population might very well have peaked and it will be headed downward over the next few decades. As the Wall Street Journal mentioned yesterday this is one thing that could cause China to implode in on itself. From the Journal:

How will China's future senior citizens support themselves? China still has no official national pension system. Up to now, China's de facto national pension system has been the family -- but that social safety net is unraveling, and rapidly. Until very recently, thanks to relatively large Chinese families, almost every Chinese woman had given birth to at least one son -- under Confucian tradition, their first line of support. But just two decades from now, thanks to the "success" of the one-child policy, roughly a third of women entering their 60s will have no living son.

By completely obliterating the traditional Chinese family and replacing it with a new paradigm that threatens the very fabric of their society, what will come of the country? Combining that with the shortage of females and you'll have a generation of men without women. On top of that, paying for all of the seniors who won't have anyone to care for them combine for what could be the perfect storm of problems that will cause China to either collapse under itself or to explode outward. Either way it could be a problem that would rack the very foundations of the current global situation. This would happen either with a monstrous war of conquest searching for some way out or else a humanitarian situation that could make Africa look like Canada. Either way there is a way out and it starts with eliminating the single child policy. After decades of this setup, they won't see the population explosion that you'd expect because everybody is used to just having one child. You will see somewhat of an uptick, however it will be relatively mild due to the increasing industrialization of the country. The bottom line is that a policy like this, carried indefinitely, will lead to the extinction of a society. That's not good for anyone, least of all, the Chinese.

At Waters' Edge

I'm about sick of the politicking that's going on. At one point in our nation's history we had good solid politics here in the states, criticizing all kinds of domestic policies, but going with a unified voice on the world front. Now, with the 24 hour news cycle, the blogosphere, and everyone else looking for a good angle for a story, it seems that the best way to do that is to be as critical as possible. I include myself (and pretty much every other blogger) in this...people don't care as much about the good news. Instead, be as negative (or rather, be as controversial, as "newsworthy") as possible, that's how you make your name, and America consents to it. One person who plays the game pretty well is sportscaster-cum-windbag Keith Olbermann. He was clever when he was the anchor of SportsCenter, but now he's just another talking head who refuses to see anything right with the Right. I'll grudgingly concede some things to the left, for starters, they're a good deal more compassionate than conservatives, but I think that conceding anything for some of these people is about the equivalent of chewing broken glass. Take, for example, his comments that I happened to run into while I was at the gym yesterday. Either I'm incredibly naive or President Bush is this generation's Hitler because he's planning to move the US into an all-war, all the time setting. Not only that, but he's "[dismissing] of the value of the polls and the importance of the media, [those all important windbags who try to drive the national agenda and won't allow anything to take more than 24 hours lest it get dull and boring and, heaven forbid, un-newsworthy.]" It could be too much 1984 or just plain delusional thinking, but Bush is planning on leaving office in 2008 and he's not pulling a Hugo Chavez and rampaging over his term limits. If he was doing that, I'd give the angry Left credit and go out and demonstrate against him too. However, he's fighting a war that we all agreed to give him the power to fight. The country was for it, Congress was for it, everyone was for it...until people saw it as an opportunity for another Vietnam. That meant that political gain could be had and perhaps it could be used to shape the nation for another 25 years, much like Vietnam paved the way for nearly a quarter century of Republican Presidents. All the supporters fell by the wayside and now Bush is almost alone in supporting it. Some may see it as stubborn and bull-headed, but not having the attention span of a gnat is hardly either of those. Bush is indeed stubborn and bull-headed, but in this area he's in the right. We're closing in on 3000 deaths, a number not to be trifled with, but one that is hardly unprecedented in the history of warfare. We should be grateful that 3 years into the fighting we're only at 3000 (with average casualties since October 2005 being just about 2 per day). 3 years into the Civil War we were north of 100,000. 3 years into World War II we were over 300,000. 3 years into Vietnam and we were close to 20,000. I shudder at the thought of what might have been said in any of those wars if the technology we have now was at our disposal then. Washington wouldn't have survived Valley Forge without being pulled from duty because of the conditions he and his soldiers lived through. It's not farfetched to say that we'd still be having afternoon tea because the conditions his soldiers were living in and the casualties they took, not to mention the utter disaster of what would have happened when the news agencies got wind of losing New York City to the British. What would have happened if the talking heads all put the warfare at Antietam or Gettysburg out there for the people to hear how badly they were bungled? What about our defeats at Coral Sea or the incredible losses and stalemate at Guadalcanal? The problem we have is that unless you win with lightning speed, everything bogs down no matter how successful it is with the new angle of "we're losing" because something has to sell advertisements and get eyeballs. In the past there was some leeway because you couldn't get up-to-the-minute information on what's going on halfway across the world, giving the government plenty of time to keep public support rather than having everyone find out at the same time and start beating the "get our troops out of x, y, or z" drum. Ultimately, nobody can win a war in these conditions, and we're about to find out what the new news cycle means to our nation as we stand almost zero chance of winning Iraq without a little cooperation and maybe even a little support from the media.

Update: here's a video of Olbermann's tirade courtesy of YouTube.

Two in the Bush

The Washington Post had a fascinating article last weekend about President Bush. While he's not turned into a quivering mess like LBJ or a scheming megalomaniac like Nixon after Watergate broke, he is concerned about his place in history. At the same time, he's calm and goes forward with the belief that even though things are bad now, he's doing the correct thing with the nation. I think this is actually the part of Bush that has scared people the most throughout his presidency, his belief that he's doing what's right. Ultimately we don't know for sure now, it will take quite a few years to find out what the long term effects of his presidency are. He had the potential to be one of the greats, a Reagan or a Lincoln or a Roosevelt. Instead, he'll probably end up in the middle chunk with most of our presidents. Not as bad as a Carter or a Hoover but instead just there like a Polk.

How much of that is the result of his presidency and how much a result of the times? I think that the increasing polarization of politics has to some degree hampered Bush. Some of this was his own doing and some of it came from the Clinton era. As a result, he hasn't had a unified war front like past presidents have enjoyed. That, in turn, has led to a "wait the Americans out" strategy from the insurgents, which they most likely will be able to do. We can only hope that we've taken care of enough of the battles by the time we leave (which will be sooner rather than later - when you start hearing it compared to WWII in the length we've been there, even though casualties are improbably light, you know that the end is probably going to be nigh for political reasons) that they won't be able to pop back up. Of course, that's what was said about Vietnam, and they only lasted 2 years after we left

Coincidence? I Think Not

I was at the gym this morning with my wife and she noticed on the news that a flaming car had crashed into Glasgow Airport. This, in conjunction with the terror plots that were "foiled"yesterday (I would say botched rather than foiled, but I could be mistaken), seems to imply that these are a concerted attack on the United Kingdom. On one hand, this is again somewhat failed. Clearly their bombmaker is not the brightest man on the planet. That's a good thing. On the downside though, just as the first terror attacks everywhere have seemed a bit bush league, this is not going to get better, it will just get worse. Eventually they won't misfire or just cause a fire at an airport. Instead, it will lead to bombs that actually work. Those could grow in complexity and size until they cause some real damage.
What does al Qaeda or whomever really want from this? It's not just a matter of getting out of the Middle East, they want full capitulation. Of course, Britain isn't Spain and I see this turning out badly for everyone. The British won't just give in (see Hitler, Adolf). I think that sometimes people see democracies' desire for peace as a weakness (and it is) and think that that trend will continue. However, if they aren't careful we will bring the thunder down (for a few years anyway).
Also, here's a little more on yesterday's plot:

Friday Quick Hits/Miscellany

A lot of thoughts for today and I know that if I try to make a post out of each of them, most will go either as little tiny posts or else unsaid.

• Disney is stopping the direct to DVD blight that was their sequels to classic Disney films. While that won't stop films that have already been made and possibly not ones that were already greenlit, this has to be counted as one of the greatest developments in the history of childrens filmmaking. Thank you Lasseter and Jobs for stopping the endless Disney rape of my childhood. While Disney wasn't ever on the On Notice section here, they should have been as they were certainly On Notice for that. Disney...you're hereby off notice.
• The Supreme Court struck down racial quotas for school enrollment. While I can see why this could be seen as a setback for civil rights, it's actually a step forward. I can see why it would have been necessary in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education because the South had to be forcibly integrated, but at this point in time it's a setback for civil rights. The best quote on the subject that I've ever heard is from Chief Justice Roberts (who has been a stellar pick so far IMO): "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That's a novel concept that has been ignored by too many for too long.
• Dual car bombs in London that probably should have exploded last night in Picadilly Circus is not a good sign for the British (or the US for that matter). Based on a variety of factors (including the use of Mercedes Benzes - the third world dictator/Arab terrorist car of choice) you might as well assume that this is the work of Islamic extremists that may or may not be a part of al Qaeda. The big question that I have is why Britain is such a fat target. I honestly would think that the US would be a jucier one, but ever since September 11 we haven't had anything happen. Meanwhile in Britain they've had Richard Reid (could technically be a plot against us too, as it was a Transatlantic flight), the subway bombings, last year's airline plot (see Richard Reid's parentheses), and now this. Someone's mad at them for being more than just the Little Satan. It's no coincidence that only about 10 days ago those al Qaeda "attack the West" training videos appeared from under some Pakistani stone. While these wouldn't have approached the destructive level that the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut did, Picadilly Circus is teeming with people and there could easily have been hundreds of casualties.
• The iPhone is out, let the madness ensue!
• Finally, in the movies that I must see before the end of summer category, A Mighty Heart. I got the book when it came out a few years back and it was absolutely incredible. If you haven't read it, I highly (moreso than anything else I've reviewed here) recommend reading it. You can pick it up right here for under 3 bucks for the hardcover (+ S&H). Take a look at the trailer. If you are in the market for a movie and aren't opposed to R ratings, see this film:
  

Monday Links/Quick Hits

A couple of interesting articles in the Journal today:
1. They have an opinion piece on The New Deal. I realize that's not cutting edge reporting right there, but it is interesting to see something different than the "FDR was Jesus" business that we get a lot. The writer does a great job separating FDR's World War II policy from his New Deal policies. The key quote? "The real question about the 1930s is not whether it is wrong to scrutinize the New Deal. Rather, the question is why it has taken us all so long. Roosevelt did famously well by one measure, the political poll. He flunked by two other meters that we today know are critically important: the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt spoke of a primary goal: "to put people to work." Unemployment stood at 20% in 1937, five years into the New Deal. As for the Dow, it did not come back to its 1929 level until the 1950s."
2. They talk about the current state of affairs with Iran (this one's free). I know that it's the gospel doctrine that the neoconservatives want to take the fight to Iran and it will be their fault if we get in a war with Iran. That is partially right I think, but at the same time I think the war will be of Iran's choosing at this point. It's too big a country and we're not in a position to take things up a notch right now. Frim the article: "The apparent meaning of all of this pointless provocation and bullying is that the axis of radicals--Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah--is feeling its oats. In part its aim is to intimidate the rest of us, in part it is merely enjoying flexing its muscles. It believes that its side has defeated America in Iraq, and Israel in Gaza and Lebanon. Mr. Ahmadinejad recently claimed that the West has already begun to "surrender," and he gloated that " final victory . . . is near." It is this bravado that bodes war."
3. Finally, an idea that I don't recall where I saw. Instead of creating a new Palestinian state, why doesn't Israel give the land back? Gaza can go to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. There may be a war at some point between the nations over Hamas or Fatah's operations into Israel, but it may solve some things. Then again, if I was either of those nations, I wouldn't want anything to do with either plot of land. Gaza is some of the most densely populated land on the planet and it'd be murder to try and get it back under control. The West Bank would be less problematic, however at the same time, does King Abdullah really want to deal with the same mess that his father did in the 60s and 70s? They kicked the Palestinians out once, and they may do it again. Those are both serious traps for the Arab nations if they ever stop hating Israel enough to turn their attention to Palestine.

A Matter of Time

It was inevitable that we would find out about something like this sooner or later, but here come the al Qaeda suicide bombers. Who knows if they'll make it over here or not, but the tactic has been so successful in Israel that I'm surprised it hasn't happened here yet.
Why is suicide bombing the terrorist weapon of choice? Part of it has been the cult of martyrdom that exists among Middle Eastern terror groups. Ever since Hezbollah pioneered suicide bombings in the 1980s they have been used with varying degrees of effectiveness by everyone from the Tamil Tigers to al Qaeda. Nevertheless, their use has been confined primarily to conflict areas, i.e. Israel, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and so on. The US mainland has never been hit by a traditional suicide bomber, although you could argue that the September 11 attacks were by suicide bombers (in the more classic kamikaze sense). The suicide attack is seen as something honorable - you are blessed with virgins and other assorted luxuries as a suicide bomber and you even get a stipend paid to your family from whichever group you are associated with. In addition, it has been inculcated in many young Muslims that this is what you do for your life.
What does that say about a society as a whole? The highest station in your life isn't to be a doctor or President or even a basketball player. It's to be a martyr and throw yourself into innocent civilians in order to change political opinion. If the best thing you can do with life is to throw it away, why build a society at all? We're starting to see some of the ripple effects of this policy not only in Lebanon (which, let's face it, has problems far beyond suicide bombers) but also in the Palestinian areas of Israel. Instead of working to create a new society, they're applying the same ethos they've had for the past 30 years - terror is the lingua franca of society. They see themselves as a perpetual underclass and are always fighting for the little man. Until they can see those problems and realize that there's more to life than martyrdom then they will never have a stable society.
The problems this could create for the US are several-fold. If we do have a wave of suicide bombers coming our way what are we going to do? Several movies and/or TV shows have touched on this idea, most notably The Siege. If a Muslim terrorist gets on a NYC bus and blows it to kingdom come and that is followed up by a subway attack in Washington, DC would we be able to keep civil liberties intact for all US citizens or would Muslims be rounded up into concentration camps? Would Posse Comitatus be rolled back to allow military personnel to guard everything from busses to buildings? Or would we just take baby steps like putting cameras in subways like they did in London with perhaps more metal detectors further out from landmarks with staging areas of sorts like what the Israelis have done with the Gaza crossing? I certainly hope for more of the latter than the former, with a clear preference towards none of the above, but I know that when citizens are presented with a choice between liberty and safety, 9 times out of 10 they'll choose safety.

Again with the Fatwahs

You have to feel bad for Salman Rushdie.  First he had to live off the grid for a decade hiding from every Islamic terrorist because Ayatollah Khomeni said he should die for blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed in the book The Satanic Verses.  That right there raises some problems, for one, looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life.  It's was an even more extreme reaction than the one that was unleashed against various European newspapers last year when they printed some pictures that were less than respectful towards the tenets of Islam.  While I don't think that people should disrespect other peoples' religions, at the same time you can't try to kill someone just because they disagree with you or they disparage you.  Anyway, that beside the point, now some clerics are starting to call for terror attacks on the United Kingdom because they've knighted Rushdie.  In addition, Khomeini's fatwah won't ever be rescinded, despite some thoughts earlier that it wasn't really in effect anymore.  That's a double whammy right there.  Again I ask, why (even though it wasn't the brightest move ever) should Britain be a terror target because they're honoring an infidel?  They're all infidels anyway, so what's the difference?  I really don't understand this line of logic.  If someone can help me out, that would be great, because I just can't wrap my hands around it.  The British are being targeted by association.  Why not target Amazon.com for selling it or whomever the publishers are for publishing it, or even the readers for reading it?  Where along the line does someone make that transition from normal person to target?

So Much for Peace in the Middle East

Since all has been quiet on the Israeli-Palestinian front lately, Hamas and Fatah have decided to duke it out amongst themselves for supremacy. As of right now, the new status quo is to have the West Bank under Fatah control and Gaza ruled by Hamas.

What does this mean for Israel and for the Middle East? It's tough to say if this is a good development or a bad one for Israel. On one hand, when the Palestinians are fighting themselves, they aren't fighting Israel. On the other, is this just creating extremism in one more part of their neighborhood, like what happened with Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s?

I think that while it's a short-term positive for Israel, it's not in their best interest for this to continue. The reason for this is because of that extremism. It was good for Israel initially to have the PLO, Druze, Maronites, Shiites, and Sunnis all fighting each other in Lebanon for a few years - the PLO was busy protecting their interests in Lebanon and not as interested in destroying Israel, however things took a turn for the worse when a new generation of fighters rose up from the ashes of that conflict to turn against Israel, dragging them into a conflict that they couldn't win. This is a disturbing development in that sense for a couple of reasons. One is that this Lebanon could threaten to engulf not just Gaza but also the West Bank, throwing chaos into the mix on two sides of the country. Second is that these Palestinian groups are already somewhat radicalized and for them to fight each other now means that they don't know what else to do. The Palestinians have been fighting the fight in one way or another for over 50 years, with Arab nations confining them to refugee camps in part to keep them marginalized, part to keep them radicalized, like keeping a pit bull in a cage and feeding it just enough to keep it alive. When they broke out (somewhat), they got their own nation, or a part of it and thought "what do we do now?" A whole society has grown up exploited and fighting for survival and I don't know if they can change. The younger generation has a chance, but even if Hamas and Fatah end up compromising and recreating some sort of coalition government, others will come along. It seems almost as if it is the lot of the Palestinians to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East. There is, of course, always a chance that something may change, but for now I don't see a way for them to break this cycle of violence. In order for peace to ever have a chance the Palestinian problem has to be resolved and not by Israel, Syria, Egypt, or anyone else. At this point in time the ball is in the Palestinians' court. They have to take the lead.

*Visit the New York Times for some fantastic pictures of the recent problems in Gaza

Monday Quick Hits/Links

• Apple had their usual Steve Jobs Fiesta today and one of the announcements that he made was that Safari, the Apple browser, was going to be released for Windows. I downloaded it and have the following to say: loved it, except that it seems to be set up for a 1-button mouse. My forward/back buttons didn't do jack and neither did my right click. I'm using a Logitech MX Revolution. Note to Steve: fix it and I will indeed use it.
• Are Hispanic immigrants not assimilating? Are they worse than prior waves (Chinese, Irish, etc)? According to the WSJ (fair use excerpt:) Mexican-born men, for example, had higher labor force participation rates than native-born male workers, 88% compared with 83%, and lower unemployment rates than native workers, 4.4% compared with 5.1% in 2006. Labor force participation rates of illegal aliens are higher yet, a whopping 94%. More importantly, the children of Hispanic immigrants are graduating from high school. The high school completion rate for young, U.S.-born Hispanics is 86%, only slightly lower than the 92% of non-Hispanic whites. Hispanic immigrant children who do enroll in school after they come here are as likely as American-born Hispanics to earn a high school diploma (although half of Mexican immigrants 15-17 years-old do not enroll in school). Hispanics are more likely than either whites or blacks to continue their education at two-year institutions; in 2000 they represented 14% of all students enrolled in two-year institutions. Only 12% of U.S.-born Hispanics earn four-year degrees compared with 26% of non-Hispanic whites.
• Has Hugo Chavez bitten off more than he can chew? Closing down RCTV and clamping down on the universities is not the best way to keep people happy. From the Journal again: The number of Venezuelans who have a favorable opinion of the president has fallen 10 percentage points to 39% since November, according to Hinterlaces, a Caracas pollster. Skyrocketing crime, inflation and shortages of basic foods have contributed to Mr. Chávez's fall in popularity since he won re-election by a landslide in December. In the past, Mr. Chávez, who has spent billions of dollars on social-welfare programs aimed at the poor, has deftly manipulated Venezuela's sharp class divisions to portray his foes as U.S. manipulated "oligarchs." That tactic hasn't worked this time, as students come from all walks of life and many are poor or working class. "You see all kinds of students here. There are no 'oligarchs,'" says Pamela Lora, a 20-year-old public-health student at UCV. "This has nothing to do with President Bush or with any 'empire,'" she scoffs.

Rocky Sick

Who else is sick of Rocky Anderson? He used to just bug people here in Utah on a local or state level with his inane plans (i.e. carry a little orange flag with you when crossing the street) and I would imagine that he'll probably come out with a plan to make all Salt Lakers wear nametags before too long. Anyway, while he was always a bit kooky, he took it up a notch with the beginning of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. He made a extremely repetitive and boring (say "That is not an American value," repeated 50 times) speech at City Hall at the head of a protest rally the day of the anniversary and then he went on O'Reilly last night to promote his "impeach President Bush" campaign.

Why does he want President Bush impeached? Because he is defying the International Criminal Court for one, never mind that the US is not a signatory on the ICC - for this kind of reason. Can you imagine having the President of the United States dragged in front of a kangaroo court for prosecuting a war? We might as well torch the Constitution right now (because the Constitution...Is not an American value - thanks Rocky). Sure the Constitution says in Article VI that treaties are also considered the law of the land, but if a signed treaty goes against the Constitution, what says it? I say Constitution trumps treaty, especially one so ill-concieved and boneheaded as the Kellogg-Briand Pact. It renounces war as an instrument of foreign policy. I assume that means without (today) the UN's approval - which I think President Bush actually got, what with the 14 resolutions passed threatening military action against Iraq for repeated violations of the end of the Persian Gulf War. He also mentions the abuse of Executive power, i.e. by letting Congress authorize a war against Iraq and then prosecuting it to his discretion and allowing Congress to send through spending bills for it. Hmm, I wonder where it says the President can't do that. I do know that the Constitution says the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, which does mean he can utilitze them as his own personal army (hence the whole CIC business) if he wants to.

Second bone to pick against Rocky. In Daily Kos' transcript, Rocky mentions 650,000 deaths attributable to the invasion of Iraq. 650,000? Did he get that number from a mental patient? Perhaps he pulled it from his butt, because that overestimates even the high numbers from say Iraq Body Count, which has some system of doing things instead of just pulling a WAG from the sky. He's only off by a factor of 10 here.

Third: he represents the city of Salt Lake. He's paid to help the city and run it. Is participating in peace rallies every day from here to Bangalore doing that? I don't think so. Shut your yap and govern your city. If you want to be the US' official peacenik to the United Nations, feel free to resign your post and do that. Otherwise, do your job.

Paging Jack Bauer

So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spoke on a rather large list of attacks or planned/attempted attacks a few days back at Gitmo (or at least the US Military released a transcript that quoted from his testimony) and come to find out, he was quite prolific in his hatred of all things American (despite looking like he was captured somewhere in the Ozarks instead of Afghanistan). Take a look at all this:
1. I was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center Operation
2. I was responsible for the 9/11 Operation, from A to Z.
3. I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, [Wall Street Journal reporter] Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head.
4. I was responsible for the Shoe Bomber Operation to down two American airplanes.
5. I was responsible for the Filka Island operation in Kuwait that killed two American soldiers.
6. I was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, which was frequented by British and American nationals.
7. I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing the New (or Second) Wave attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: a. Library Tower, California. b. Sears Tower, Chicago, c. Plaza Bank, Washington state. d. The Empire State Building, New York City.
8. I was responsible for planning, financing, & follow-up of Operations to destroy American military vessels and oil tankers in the Straights of Hormuz, and Straights of Gibralter, and the Port of Singapore.
9. I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the Operation to bomb and destroy the Panama Canal.
10. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the assassination of several former American Presidents, including President Carter.
11. I was responsible for surveying, planning, and financing for the bombing of suspension bridges in New York.
12. I was responsible for planning to destroy the Sears Tower by burning a few fuel or oil tanker trucks beneath it or around it.
13. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the operation to destroy Heathrow Airport, the Canary Wharf Building, and Big Ben on British soil.
14. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the destruction of many night clubs frequented by American and British citizens on Thailand soil.
15. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of the New York Stock Exchange and other financial targets after 9/11.
16. I was responsible for planning, financing, and surveying for the destruction of buildings in the Israeli city of Elat by using airplanes leaving from Saudi Arabia.
17. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing for the destruction of American embassies in Indonesia, Australia, and Japan.
18. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of the Israeli embassy in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines, and Australia.
19. I was responsible for surveying and financing for the destruction of an Israeli 'El-Al' Airlines flight on Thailand soil departing from Bangkok Airport.
20. I was responsible for sending several Mujahadeen into Israel to conduct surveillance to hit several strategic targets deep in Israel.
21. I was responsible for the bombing of the hotel in Mombasa that is frequented by Jewish travelers via El-Al airlines.
22. I was responsible for launching a Russian-made SA-7 surface-to-air missile on El-Al or other Jewish airliner departing from Mombasa.
23. I was responsible for planning and surveying to hit American targets in South Korea, such as American military bases and a few night clubs frequented by American soldiers.
24. I was responsible for financial, excuse me, I was responsible for providing financial support to hit American, Jewish, and British targets in Turkey.
25. I was responsible for surveillance needed to hit nuclear power plants that generate electricity in several U.S. states.
26. I was responsible for planning, surveying, and financing to hit NATO Headquarters in Europe.
27. I was responsible for the planning and surveying needed to execute the Bojinka Operation, which was designed to down twelve American airplanes full of passengers. I personally monitored a found-trip, Manila-to-Seoul, Pan Am flight.
28. I was responsible for the assassination attempt against President Clinton during his visit to the Philippines in 1994 or 1995. . . .
29. I shared responsibility for the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul the second while he was visiting the Philippines.
30. I was responsible for the training and financing for the assassination of Pakistan's President Musharraf.
31. I was responsible for the attempt to destroy an American oil company owned by the Jewish former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, on the Island of Sumatra, Indonesia.

That is a ton of stuff! While I think that the US has made plenty of mistakes during the Global War on Terror, preventing some attacks like this instead of sticking our heads in the sand has made it worthwhile. Just imagine the terror that would be a part of our daily lives. Sure, we could pull out of Saudi Arabia, have not invaded Iraq, and so forth, but that doesn't help. Look at Israel. Despite their legitimate attempts at separation and giving the Palestinians Gaza and the West Bank, they're still under a legitimate daily threat from extremists for daring to exist.
Some might say that he was either under duress and just confessed to everything because he is playing Marwan on 24, and CTU did a bang-up job of roughing him up, but some of these are plots that nobody ever knew about. Did he just toss some stuff in there for the fun of it? I think that they want people to know what they've done because it will terrorize people (hopefully). It may not be the most current of information, but since the point of terror is to terrorize, knowing nowhere is safe meets that objective. Therefore, there's no point in lying about it, and possibly no point in putting him under duress, because he wants people to know. I'm not saying that there wasn't a Lynndie England there during some sessions, but I do think it wasn't that hard to get out of him either.

North Korea's Impotent Taepodong

Note: Yeah, it took me this long to finally finish it!
While I missed the actual launching of the missile (I was watching World Cup soccer instead), North Korea launched a series of Taepodong-2 missiles earlier this week. While it seems rather frightening (the Taepodong-2 is a missile that could theoretically hit Anchorage, Alaska) that the North Koreans have nukes and ICBMs, it's not quite as bad as it seems. The main reason for that is because the missiles didn't even fly far enough for our ABM systems to have a test-toast. Instead, they malfunctioned and blew up 40 or so seconds into flight - think back to your younger years, when the Challenger blew up over Florida. That was around 2 minutes into flight. For a missile of this size, it's the equivalent of trying to dunk a ball, but only getting 6 inches off the ground. Oh, and the diminuitive size of Kim Jong Il means that North Korea would be getting 6 inches off the ground as Earl Boykins. It's a failure, and a big one. Of course, they'll be back, but for now it's not such a bad deal. We're up to our ears in other, more pressing issues, and if Pyongyang can just sit tight until we've dealt with Hezbollah, Iran, and all those other madmen, then it would really help us out of a jam.

Eyewitness Reports from both sides of the front

"I belong to a certain secret society, who's name needs not mention here." Well, nevermind. It's a message board community called FlyerTalk. Normally we're all concerned about how to maximize our travel dollar and get the most free stuff, however, I just stumbled across a thread there that is about the current war between Hezbollah and Israel. There are several prominent FTers who are involved in this conflict, and here's a point/counterpoint from one in Israel and one in Lebanon, both of whom are in range of the enemy's forces. It's not antagonistic at all and it goes to show that there are great people on both sides and that the real tragedy is that Hezbollah started this and Israel feels compelled to respond.
Read all about it here.