bernie's blog

The Fascist Offensive

2010-08-31T20:36:00.002-05:00

I've also found that when attempting to understand an issue, whether it relates to a current political situation, or a competitive business situation, to resort to two research methods:

1. Reach back and read what history has taught us.
2. Research and attempt to understand what competitors have to say about a mutual competitor... as the saying goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I've been doing some historical reading as it relates to the growth of Fascism in Germany & Italy in the 1920's & 1930's and I found the following article from "Seventh World Congress of the Communist International" from August 2, 1935 and I felt that it warranted some pondering:

The development of fascism, and the fascist dictatorship itself, assume different forms in different countries, according to historical, social and economic conditions and to the national peculiarities, and the international position of the given country. In certain countries, principally those in which fascism has no broad mass basis and in which the struggle of the various groups within the camp of the fascist bourgeoisie itself is rather acute, fascism does not immediately venture to abolish parliament, but allows the other bourgeois parties, as well as the Social-Democratic Parties, to retain a modicum of legality. In other countries, where the ruling bourgeoisie fears an early outbreak of revolution, fascism establishes its unrestricted political monopoly, either immediately or by intensifying its reign of terror against and persecution of all rival parties and groups. This does not prevent fascism, when its position becomes particularly acute, from trying to extend its basis and, without altering its class nature, trying to combine open terrorist dictatorship with a crude sham of parliamentarism.

The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie -- bourgeois democracy -- by another form -- open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of the seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance, for the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries -- measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.

Comrades, the accession to power of fascism must not be conceived of in so simplified and smooth a form, as though some committee or other of finance capital decided on a certain date to set up a fascist dictatorship. In reality, fascism usually comes to power in the course of a mutual, and at times severe, struggle against the old bourgeois parties, or a definite section of these parties, in the course of a struggle even within the fascist camp itself -- a struggle which at times leads to armed clashes, as we have witnessed in the case of Germany, Austria and other countries. All this, however, does not make less important the fact that, before the establishment of a fascist dictatorship, bourgeois governments usually pass through a number of preliminary stages and adopt a number of reactionary measures which directly facilitate the accession to power of fascism. Whoever does not fight the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie and the growth of fascism at these preparatory stages is not in a position to prevent the victory of fascism, but, on the contrary, facilitates that victory.

The Social-Democratic leaders glossed over and concealed from the masses the true class nature of fascism, and did not call them to the struggle against the increasingly reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie. They bear great historical responsibility for the fact that, at the decisive moment of the fascist offensive, a large section of the working people of Germany and of a number of other fascist countries failed to recognize in fascism the most bloodthirsty monster of finance capital, their most vicious enemy, and that these masses were not prepared to resist it.

What is the source of the influence of fascism over the masses? Fascism is able to attract the masses because it demagogically appeals to their most urgent needs and demands. Fascism not only inflames prejudices that are deeply ingrained in the masses, but also plays on the better sentiments of the masses, on their sense of justice and sometimes even on their revolutionary traditions. Why do the German fascists, those lackeys of the bourgeoisie and mortal enemies of socialism, represent themselves to the masses as "Socialists," and depict their accession to power as a "revolution"? Because they try to exploit the faith in revolution and the urge towards socialism that lives in the hearts of the mass of working people in Germany.

Fascism acts in the interests of the extreme imperialists, but it presents itself to the masses in the guise of champion of an ill-treated nation, and appeals to outraged national sentiments, as German fascism did, for instance, when it won the support of the masses of the petty bourgeoisie by the slogan "Down with the Versailles Treaty."

Fascism aims at the most unbridled exploitation of the masses but it approaches them with the most artful anti-capitalist demagogy, taking advantage of the deep hatred of the working people against the plundering bourgeoisie, the banks, trusts and financial magnates, and advancing those slogans which at the given moment are most alluring to the politically immature masses. In Germany -- "The general welfare is higher than the welfare of the individual," in Italy -- "Our state is not a capitalist, but a corporate state," in Japan -- "For Japan without exploitation," in the United States -- "Share the wealth," and so forth.

Fascism delivers up the people to be devoured by the most corrupt and venal elements, but comes before them with the demand for "an honest and incorruptible government." Speculating on the profound disillusionment of the masses in bourgeois-democratic governments, fascism hypocritically denounces corruption.

It is in the interests of the most reactionary circles of the bourgeoisie that fascism intercepts the disappointed masses who desert the old bourgeois parties. But it impresses these masses by the vehemence of its attacks on the bourgeois governments and its irreconcilable attitude to the old bourgeois parties.

Surpassing in its cynicism and hypocrisy all other varieties of bourgeois reaction, fascism adapts its demagogy to the national peculiarities of each country, and even to the peculiarities of the various social strata in one and the same country. And the mass of the petty bourgeoisie and even a section of the workers, reduced to despair by want, unemployment and the insecurity of their existence, fall victim to the social and chauvinist demagogy of fascism.

Fascism comes to power as a party of attack on the revolutionary movement of the proletariat, on the mass of the people who are in a state of unrest; yet it stages its accession to power as a "revolutionary" movement against the bourgeoisie on behalf of "the whole nation" and for the "salvation" of the nation. One recalls Mussolini's "march" on Rome, Pilsudski's "march" on Warsaw, Hitler's National-Socialist "revolution" in Germany, and so forth.

But whatever the masks that fascism adopts, whatever the forms in which it presents itself, whatever the ways by which it comes to power

Fascism is a most ferocious attack by capital on the mass of the working people;
Fascism is unbridled chauvinism and predatory war;
Fascism is rabid reaction and counter-revolution;
Fascism is the most vicious enemy of the working class and of all working people.

-----

"...Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you."

Disguised Fascism Seen as a Menace

2010-08-31T20:20:00.003-05:00

"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled "made in Germany"; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will, of course, be called "Americanism," Professor Halford E. Luccock of the Divinity School of Yale University said yesterday morning in a sermon at the Riverside Church, Riverside Drive and 122d Street.

"The high-sounding phrase "the American way" will be used by interested groups, intent on profit, to cover a multitude of sins against the American and Christian tradition, such as lawless violence, tear gas and shotguns, denial of civil liberties," he said. "There is an obligation resting on us all to dedicate our minds to the hard task of thinking in terms of Christian objectives and values, so that we may be saved from moral confusion.

"For never, probably, has there been a time when there was a more vigorous effort to surround social and international questions with such a fog of distortion and prejudice and hysterical appeal to fear. We have touched a new low in a Congressional investigation this summer, used by some participating in it to whip up fear and prejudice against many causes of human welfare, such as a concern for peace and the rights of labor to bargain collectively.

Professor Luccock, who preached on the theme "Keeping Life Out of Confusion", continued:
"The old prayer in the Psalms, 'Let me never be put to confusion,' seems a strange one in a day when there seems to be little else but confusion in a puzzled world. We ought to recognize that uncertainty of mind is not all a bad thing. It is a sign that your mind is still alive, still sensitive. If you are not at all confused in this day you are dead mentally and spiritually.

"There is of course the peace of the cemetery. If you want that you can have it. But you will pay for such complacent serenity with blind eyes which do not see the world's fear and agony; with deaf ears, into which the still sad music of humanity never comes; with deadened nerves and unsensitized conscience.

"We will never be brought to confusion, even in such a baffling and muddled world as ours, if we have a faith in a God of love as the ultimate power in the universe. The words 'God is love' have this deep meaning: that everything that is against love is ultimately doomed and damned."

- New York Times, September 12, 1938, Page 15
______________________________________
"Fascism in America will attempt to advance under the banner of Americanism and anti-Fascism."

"It is a peculiarity of the development of American fascism that at the present stage it comes forward principally in the guise of an opposition to fascism, which it accuses of being an "un-American" trend imported from abroad. In contradistinction to German fascism, which acts under anti-constitutional slogans, American fascism tries to portray itself as the custodian of the Constitution and "American democracy." It does not as yet represent a directly menacing force"

- Georgi Dimitrov (1882-1949). Seventh Congress of the Comintern (1935).

WikiLeaks

2010-08-05T22:49:00.005-05:00

Below find some information about the latest in the ongoing saga of WikiLeaks. Click the Bold Links for more information:

WikiLeaks aftermath
By Shuja Nawaz
August 6, 2010

IN STAND-UP comedy and politics, timing is critical. There was nothing “funny ha-ha’’ about the recent leak of US documents about the Afghanistan war implicating Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency. But there was plenty of what the British call “funny peculiar’’ for sure.

The leaks followed a period of growing confidence of the ISI and Pakistan in their quest to work with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to rebuild relationships marked by severe historical distrust. How Afghanistan and Pakistan overcome the challenge posed by intelligence reports linking the ISI to hostile events in Afghanistan will determine Pakistan’s relations in the neighborhood and with the United States, as well as the trajectory of US withdrawal from the region. President Karzai’s press conference following the leak indicates that some damage has been done already to the nascent Pakistan-Afghan entente......
____________________________________________________________________

Pentagon demands Wikileaks return Afghanistan document
5 August 2010 Last updated at 22:11 ET
BBC News

The Pentagon has demanded that Wikileaks remove a trove of secret documents on the Afghanistan war from its website and cancel plans to publish anything more it holds.

But a Pentagon spokesman acknowledged the already-leaked documents' viral spread across the internet made it unlikely they could ever be quashed.

"We are asking them to do the right thing," spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

Wikileaks called Mr Morrell "obnoxious" and appealed for public donations.

The US military documents released last month detail civilian deaths, friendly-fire episodes and other ground-level incidents.

They include allegations the Pakistani intelligence service has backed the Taliban insurgents' fight against the US-led coalition and the Afghan government, and indicate Taliban fighters have acquired surface-to-air missiles. ......

____________________________________________________________________

Politician: Execution OK for Wikileaks source
August 3, 2010 9:48 AM PDT

A Republican congressman who's a member of the House Intelligence Committee lashed out at Wikileaks this week, saying the Web site's alleged source should be executed for treason.

Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan told a local radio station on Monday (MP3 audio) that he believes that Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence specialist who is suspected of being a source for the document-sharing Web site, should be charged with treason.
When the WHMI interviewer suggested that treason in war is a capital crime, Rogers replied: "Yes, and I would have absolutely, I would support it 100 percent. He put soldiers at risk who are out there fighting for their country, and he put people who are cooperating with the United States government clearly at risk."

Rogers added: "If you have an 18- or 19-year-old over there, you want to get your hands on this private first class yourself. I know I do." .....
____________________________________________________________________

Opinion: It's a WikiLeaks World, Get Used to It
(Aug. 5) -- No matter where right or wrong lie in the posting of classified military reports on WikiLeaks.org, one lesson should be clear: This is how it's going to be. Technology will continue to undercut secrecy -- not just in the military, but in all large organizations.

Government and corporate leaders who aren't ahead of this problem may already have trouble on their hands they don't know about.

When 90,000 pages of documents chronicling the Afghan war went online last week, their potential effects on military planning and security caused the White House to strongly condemn their posting as "irresponsible." Differing more than slightly, Salon commentator Glenn Greenwald praised WikiLeaks.org as "one of the most valuable and important organizations in the world."

While there is universal agreement that over-classification in the U.S. government is a problem, leaking government documents isn't a good way to fix it. Nevertheless, a pair of related technology trends will continue to push this "fix" in a disorderly way if it's not solved methodically.

Technology: First, individuals today have tremendous power to collect, transmit and process information. Average people have hand-held computers and phones, huge-capacity flash memory thumb drives, and so on. The tech-savvy have even more powerful information devices, familiarity with encryption, and anonymization tools. We have overcome the natural conditions that made easy-to-censor hand-written letters a minimal threat to "operational security" in World War II.

Culture: Cultural trends are coming into play as well. Military service-members today live in a culture of information sharing that might baffle their senior officers. They expect to be in touch with the outside world during their tours. Their service is long and difficult enough without quarantining them in a communications bubble for protracted periods. Indeed, doing so would undermine military effectiveness by cutting deeply into the morale of young men and women whose stateside lives are "always connected." This is the generation that knows the value and power of sharing information.

So what's to be done? .....

Armenia and reality

2010-03-07T20:35:00.004-05:00

IMHO, there is a time and a place to when we should be realists and recognize those moments in history when to speak out about something that is "right" and when the timing of our speaking out can put our sons in and daughters in harm's way. Correcting history is the luxury of a stable and strong power, not that of one overstretched militarily and economically.

Perhaps the place to begin is here:
Top of the Agenda: Turkey Balks at U.S. Genocide Vote on Armenia
Turkey recalled its ambassador (CSMonitor) to the United States over a disagreement on how to refer to the mass killings of Armenians during World War I. The U.S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution requiring official use of the term "Armenian genocide" in referring to the killings. "We condemn this resolution accusing Turkey of a crime that it had not committed," the Turkish prime minister's office said in a written statement. Turkey had warned that passing the bill could disrupt positive relations with Washington and damage Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned fellow Democrat and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman before the vote to say the measure could harm efforts (Telegraph) to normalize Turkish-Armenian relations, the White House said. Despite this appeal, Berman went ahead with the committee debate and vote. It remains unclear whether the bill will reach a floor vote.

What is this all about?
The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, translit.: Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն, Meç Eġeṙn, Armenian pronunciation: [mɛts jɛˈʁɛrn]) – was the deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I. It was characterized by the use of massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and 1.5 million. Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[6]
It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides, as scholars point to the systematic, organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians. Indeed, the word genocide was coined in order to describe these events. It is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.

The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. Thereafter, the Ottoman military uprooted Armenians from their homes and forced them to march for hundreds of miles, depriving them of food and water, to the desert of what is now Syria. Massacres were indiscriminate of age or gender, with rape and other sexual abuse commonplace.

The Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide is an accurate description of the events (see, Denial of the Armenian Genocide). In recent years, it has faced repeated calls to accept the events as genocide. To date, twenty countries have officially recognized the events of the period as genocide, and most genocide scholars and historians accept this view. The majority of Armenian diaspora communities were founded as a result of the Armenian genocide.

And after you read through that analysis pick up some of the backstory here:

Armenia and reality
By Ron Kampeas · March 5, 2010
M.J. Rosenberg at the Huffington Post sees the vote yesterday in the House Foreign Affairs Committee recognizing the Armenian genocide as a genocide as typical of Israel lobby machinations:

The lobby has always opposed deeming the Armenian slaughter a genocide largely because Turkey has (or had) good relations with Israel. And the lobby, and its Congressional acolytes, did not want to harm those relations.

But, since the Gaza war, Turkish-Israeli relations have deteriorated. The Turks, like pretty much every other nation on the planet, were appalled by the Israeli onslaught against the Gazans. And said so.

Ever since, the Netanyahu government has made a point to stick it to the Turks.

That battle is now being carried to Washington. The Israelis are trying to teach the Turks a lesson. If the Armenian resolution passes both houses and goes into effect, it will not be out of some newfound compassion for the victims of the Armenian genocide and their descendants, but to send a message to Turkey: if you mess with Israel, its lobby will make Turkey pay a price in Washington.

And, just maybe, the United States will pay it too.

I think this assessment is wrong, but I first have to admit a degree of culpability; M.J. bases this assessment on a parsing of a brief I wrote on the vote, and his parsing is fair enough; there's just so much I could pack into the brief, and stuff I left out might have led him to different conclusions.

First, let me make clear: I don't think Israel or the pro-Israel lobby is behind this vote. What I was trying to report in the brief is that while Israel and the pro-Israel lobby helped squelch previous efforts to pass this non-binding resolution, this year -- based on a bunch of conversations I've had over the past year -- I can safely say that the pro-Israel community is hanging back and telling the lawmakers, "Do what you feel is right. We're not spending political capital on the Turks this season."

I honestly did not get the sense that anyone in the pro-Israel lobby is eager for this resolution to pass; just that they did not feel motivated to burn themselves by helping to kill it.

In fact, this resolution carried in committee at least once before -- in 2007 -- and it carried because seven out of eight Jews on committee voted for it. (The single Jew who voted against was Robert Wexler of Florida, who was a friend of the Turkish lobby.)

So if the Jewish members favored the "genocide" label in the past, why did I choose to make a news item of yesterday's vote? Because there was a subtle -- but significant -- difference this time. Last time, the chairman of the panel, the late Tom Lantos of California, did not sponsor the bill -- but he ended up voting for it, after agonizing about it in his opening remarks. So too did the other six Jews who voted to call the massacres a genocide. And some of them explicitly agonized because of Turkey's good relations (at least then) with Israel. "This has been tough for me," Gary Ackerman of New York said then. Eliot Engel of New York voted "with a heavy heart."

This time, Lantos' successor as chairman, Howard Berman of California, did not dither at all and, in fact, co-sponsored the bill. And despite his urgings, it passed by a much tighter margin than in 2007: 23-22 yesterday as opposed to 27-21 in 2007. (It never reached the full House in that session.) This year, Wexler's out of Congress, and all seven Jews on the panel were in the "aye" column.

So what does this really tell us about the Israel lobby? It says, first of all, that its frontline -- Congress' Jewish members (and please, this is not unusual, Hispanic groups look to Hispanic members as their frontline, etc.) -- will at times defy the lobby's wishes. They did so in 2007, when pro-Israel groups lobbied very, very hard against the resolution. That they felt freer to vote in favor yesterday is significant, but the bigger picture underscores that they are not the lobby's pawns.

It also means that lobbies align themselves with existing interests. Previous defeats of the bill -- whether in committee, or by keeping the resolution from reaching the House floor -- were not the Israel lobby's alone. As M.J. notes, the Obama administration, like its predecessors, lobbied hard against the bill. Notably, Republicans on the committee who are seen as stalwarts of the pro-Israel lobby voted nay both times, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Mike Pence of Indiana, and presumably for the same reason: They have close ties to the Pentagon, which, because of Turkey's NATO membership, does not want it to pass.

It also means that there are other, competing, lobbies. Adam Schiff of California, the perennial sponsor of this resolution, happens to be Jewish -- and also happens to represent an Armenian-heavy constituency in California. Berman is and Lantos was, not coincidentally, also Californians.

But finally, it means that American foreign policy -- and this is something we wonks forget -- is driven, perhaps to a greater degree than in any other country, by conscience. By moral choice.

I'm not saying yesterday's vote is the correct moral choice. The doctrine of "realism" in foreign policy implies legitimate moral choices of self-interest -- and this vote may not be in Amerca's self-interest. And I don't know whether the resolution will go farther than the committee -- Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, kept it from the House floor in 2007, and may do so again.

But there's no question what recent Jewish theory teaches out about the Armenian genocide: That it was, indeed, a genocide. In 1986, I took Yad Vashem's 3-week intensive study course on the Shoah, and I'll never forget what Yehuda Bauer -- the preeminent Shoah scholar -- taught us: The Armenian genocide was the Holocaust's "cousin if not its brother." What persuaded him, he said, was evidence that the Ottomans looked to physicians to facilitate the massacres -- a precursor of the science the Germans used to speed up their genocide just decades later.

Yesterday's vote might not have been in U.S. interests, according to a "realist" foreign policy read. It probably was not in Israel's interests, despite the recent coolness between Israel and Turkey. (Notably, one Israeli voice who has consistently defied his country's "realist" approach and advocated for recognizing the Armenian genocide as such is Yossi Sarid -- also a father of the peace movement.)

American support for Israel has never had a purely "realist," or self-interested, cast -- and via Goldblog, Walter Russell Mead at the American Interest makes this case better than I ever could. The support has been, mostly. a moral choice, whatever you make of the morality.

And whatever one makes of the wisdom of the vote yesterday -- or in 2007 -- I remember feeling immensely moved as seven Jewish members voted not in the "realist" interests of the State Department or the Pentagon or of Israel; but in the interests of never again denying that a genocide occurred.

Haiti & Isolationism

2010-01-22T23:51:00.003-05:00

FB Poster 1: " you know what FUCK HAITI! if we had a disaster and needed help what other country is gonna help us out!? my point exactly..... what a joke! 10% of our country is unemployed bc all of our work is being sent to other countries bc their gonna do it for the fraction of the hourly rate.. Fuckin scabs! Ahhhh"

FB Poster 1: "10% of our country is unemployed bc all of our work is being sent to other countries bc their gonna do it for the fraction of the hourly rate.. Fuckin scabs! Ahhhh"

FB Poster 2: "i was thinkin the same thing im sick of hearing all about it

FB Poster 1: "Well let's see.. We're gonna fly them to the U.S. Do they have green card? Nope! Then will take care of them, give them free housing, loans and jobs (our jobs) and free education.. Would they do the same for us? NO!"

FB Poster 2: "exactly."

FB Poster 3 : "I feel the same...hate to say it but yea....lol"

FB Poster 1: "ya dude in a since it sucks what happened...... but seriously its outa control and over rated.... if we were in the same perdicament we would never get all the money, food and drugs needed to save our lives unless it came from the U.S. and the first thing they'd ask.... do you have health insurance sur? lol

Bernard Martin Isolationism: National policy of avoiding political or economic entanglements with other countries. Isolationism has been a recurrent theme in U.S. history. It was given expression in the Farewell Address of Pres. George Washington and in the early 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. The term is most often applied to the political atmosphere in the U.S. in the 1930s.

The failure of Pres. Woodrow Wilson's internationalism, liberal opposition to war as an instrument of policy, and the rigours of the Great Depression were among the reasons for Americans' reluctance to concern themselves with the growth of fascism in Europe.

The Johnson Act (1934) and the Neutrality acts (1935) effectively prevented economic or military aid to any country involved in the European disputes that were to escalate into World War II. U.S. isolationism encouraged the British in their policy of appeasement and contributed to French paralysis in the face of the growing threat posed by Nazi Germany.

In essence, not participating in world politics lead to the rise of Hitler and WWII.

Haiti is on an island that was once called "Hispaniola" Christopher Columbus landed at Môle Saint-Nicolas on 5 December 1492, and claimed the island of Hispaniola for Spain that day in and effort to find TRADE ROUTES to the orient. Instead he "found" the America's and the vast wealth of raw materials here.

The British East India in the 1750's began global economic trading. This also lead to the colonization of the America's and many many immigrants coming here for work. The first shots of the FIRST global war were fired @ Fort Necessity just south of Pittsburgh and was the foundation of the Seven Years War fought around the world basically over economic issues.

So, the basis of the foundation of the United States resides in global trade. The model created by the Founding Fathers made us the biggest and richest kid on the block. Essentially, not helping the Haitians would be like the entire city of Pittsburgh burning to the ground and the very richest people saying "F 'em" It would not go over well and those kids whose parents died would raise kids who hated America.... The "Rich Peeple" (kinda like the situation currently in the Middle East.)

You're probably correct that we wouldn't get much help if a natural disaster struck one of our major cities... at least no where near the same level as we are providing for Haiti. But that's 'cause we're still the richest country on the planet.

By most economic measures, Haiti is the poorest country in the Americas. It had a nominal GDP of 7.018 billion USD in 2009, with a GDP per capita of 790 USD, about $2 per person per day. I'm pretty sure that they don't take any jobs from the US since about 66% of all Haitians work in the agricultural sector, which consists mainly of small-scale subsistence farming.

FB Poster 1: "Ok well thanks for the info.. My outlook on haitians are a lot different now.. I guess I'm not a irritated as much now.. Ha ha"

Bernard Martin Understanding where jobs go and why:
The textile trade is a great example of why jobs migrate to "lower cost" producers.

As a direct result of colonization of the America's the British Trade Unions (remember that they started them) was pretty angry with the the folks in New England for taking there jobs from them because they had cheaper labor. Several years later the people in New England where pretty upset with the Southern States for taking their jobs away. ... moving forward in history the textile industry moved to China and the folks down South where upset. In the past several years the Chinese have become rather perturbed that they have lost the textile business to India and Viet Nam.

This brief snippet of history was related to me by the Indian Ambassador to the US several years ago... The most interesting part of the story was the final part: he fully expected the textile industry to next move to Afrika or another "low cost producer" Such is the nature of history repeating itself.

Week in review: Copenhagen and the sceptics

2009-12-12T01:26:00.002-05:00

At some point you have to ask: "Should we be following the money?" Why do you think the Saudi's would prefer to deny that climate change is happening?

Week in review: Copenhagen and the sceptics
Paul Woodward, Online Correspondent
Last Updated: December 11. 2009 11:44AM UAE / December 11. 2009 7:44AM GMT

On Monday the long-awaited Copenhagen climate summit opened amid renewed attacks on the scientific findings that demonstrate climate change.

"The debate, set off by the circulation of several thousand files and e-mail messages stolen from one of the world's foremost climate research institutes, has led some who oppose limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and at least one influential country, Saudi Arabia, to question the scientific basis for the Copenhagen talks," The New York Times said.

"The uproar has threatened to complicate a multiyear diplomatic effort already ensnared in difficult political, technical and financial disputes that have caused leaders to abandon hopes of hammering out a binding international climate treaty this year.

"In recent days, an array of scientists and policy makers have said that nothing so far disclosed - the correspondence and documents include references by prominent climate scientists to deleting potentially embarrassing e-mail messages, keeping papers by competing scientists from publication and making adjustments in research data - undercuts decades of peer-reviewed science."

George Monbiot wrote: "The denial industry, which has no interest in establishing the truth about global warming, insists that these emails, which concern three or four scientists and just one or two lines of evidence, destroy the entire canon of climate science.

"Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed - the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents - the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

"No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Solar cycles have been out of synch with the temperature record for 40 years. The Milankovic cycle, which describes variations in the Earth's orbit, doesn't explain it either. But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The impact of these gases can be demonstrated in the laboratory. To assert that they do not have the same effect in the atmosphere, a novel and radical theory would be required. No such theory exists. The science is not fixed - no science ever is - but it is as firm as science can be. The evidence for man-made global warming remains as strong as the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer or HIV to Aids."

Even so, commentators such as Mona Charen, writing at National Review claimed on Tuesday: "contrary to the dire predictions of climate alarmists, there has been no measurable increase in world temperatures since 1998."

The same day, ABC News reported: "The current decade likely ranks as the hottest since temperature records began in the 1850s, the UN World Meteorological Organization announced today.

"2009 may rank as the fifth-warmest year on record, the WMO said, although the final rank won't be available until next year. 1998 holds the rank as the hottest year. It was characterised by an unusually strong El Nino, a giant patch of warm water along the equator in the Pacific that appears periodically and can strongly affect the wind currents flowing over it."

Characteristic of a popular line of attack - against the messengers rather than the message - Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal believes he has detected a "totalitarian impulse" driving those who call for reductions in carbon emissions.

An editorial in The Washington Post said: "Many - including us - find global warming deniers' claims irresponsible and their heated criticism of climate scientists unconvincing."

The paper then ran a commentary by former Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who, making no distinction between weather and climate, asserted: "we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes," and went on to say, "any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs."

Meanwhile, in an unexpected development, The National reported on Wednesday: "The UAE made waves at the Copenhagen climate talks yesterday by putting its name to a joint statement calling on developed countries to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

"The document, which was also signed by Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Iceland, Singapore and Slovenia, is one of the strongest statements on climate change to come from an oil-producing nation.

"Members of Opec, the petroleum exporters, have generally sought to downplay the issue of global warming.

"However, yesterday's communique took a definitive stand in what was hailed as a bold departure.

" 'Humankind is confronted with the consequences of its past actions,' the statement read. 'Scientific evidence clearly shows that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contribute significantly to global warming. The potential risks of unmitigated climate change are enormous.'"

Reporting from the front line of climate change, The Diplomat magazine described the impact already felt in Pacific island nations.

"Chief Bernard Tunim confronts the issue head-on: 'We didn't create global warming but we are its first victims. The industrialised world must take decisive action at the Copenhagen summit before it's too late for everyone.'

"Standing in knee-deep water on Piul Island, Chief Bernard points to a decaying coconut stump nearly 200 metres offshore from the beach we are standing on.

" 'That used to be our shoreline only 10 or 15 years ago,' he says. 'Look how the sea is eating us away. We are only a small island, the king tides have already swamped our gardens and soon we'll have to leave. The future of my island is now only for fish, not people.'

"Piul is one of 5 atolls that make up the Carteret Islands group in Papua New Guinea, where the 3,000 islanders who live on these beautiful yet vulnerable atolls are being recognised as the world's first climate change refugees.

"Preparations are being made to relocate them to nearby Bougainville, a large mountainous island, over the next year or two. For them, talk about climate change and rising seas is not an abstract concept but one that's a hard reality."

Israel's Other War

2009-09-12T12:29:00.002-05:00

I thought that this article was rather interesting. It's interesting to think about how the ultra conservative groups make sole claim to the country's economic success and keeping it on the '"right path" (no pun intended). What I think many fail to realize is that for any venture to be a success it is a matter of making sure all the cylinders are firing in order: It's a system that you need to constantly ix and adapt. Over time the system will encounter new problems, new roadblocks and new technology. How successful a system will be over time is dependent upon how those hurdles and opportunities are addressed over the course of time. History is the only judge. Hindsight is 20/20.

An excerpt from the article below. As always the link above in the title:

Israel's Other War
by Carl Horowitz

For nearly 50 years it has been an article of faith among American conservatives that liberty and tradition are mutually reinforcing. Not only is there no inherent conflict between the two, the argument goes, but each works to the other’s benefit. As a corollary, religious observance, or at least cultural traits acquired through it, provides the moral basis for capitalist success. George Gilder, Irving Kristol, Daniel Lapin, the late Frank Meyer (the original “fusionist”), Michael Novak – these and other conservative authors have advanced this now-familiar view. A rapidly growing and incendiary divide among Israeli Jews, however, is putting this shibboleth to the test.

Welcome to Israel’s “other” war. It’s really a civil war in nascent form, one that pits modernity against extreme tradition. The conflict hasn’t gotten too much attention here. Yet if fully realized, it may well prove that country’s undoing. And we throughout the free world will be poorer for it.

The Murtha we know and the Washington fairy tale

2009-05-10T19:34:00.001-05:00

MARK PASQUERILLA | The Murtha we know and the Washington fairy tale

By MARK PASQUERILLA
For The Tribune-Democrat
April 19, 2009 11:25 pm

— Jack Murtha is the ultimate UPS man – he has humbly delivered for us for more than 30 years.
Our western Pennsylvania region has been spared some of the harsh reckoning of this recession, largely due to Mr. Murtha’s work to transform the economy in our region.
When I moved back to town in 1981, we faced a tough economic decline.
Ten thousand steelworkers were put on the street, and you could meet them in Central Park waiting to be called back to work. These jobs left the area forever, and only through hard teamwork did we build a new economy. While our nation fights this current recession, we face a more unique challenge – sinister extremist forces of the left and right want to pick your congressman.
I love fairy tales, but not Washington fairy tales. Here is the fairy tale: That only our congressman takes campaign donations from lobbyists and defense firm employees and PACS, and that only our congressman writes earmarks.
First of all, an earmark comes from the basic constitutional rights of congressmen, and 90 percent of congressmen asked for earmarks in the current budget. Do you believe in the Constitution, our sacred law that insures your rights to carry a gun, own property and freedom of worship? Then you should want your congressman to appropriate and do earmarks, as guaranteed by our Constitution and the Founding Fathers, as a check against an imperial presidency.
Here is the other side of the Washington fairy tale. Many of our biggest local employers are involved in defense and government contracting. The biggest firms, such as DRS, employ a government-relations person (usually a former House or Senate staffer) and several lobbying firms. How can local firms such as Concurrent Technologies Corp., JWF Industries and L. Robert Kimball compete nationally if they do not retain lobbyists like the big guys?
Well the high and mighty in Washington, New York and Boston have no faith in our local work force. They believe nothing of any good can come from here. When something exceptional is produced in our region, they believe it must be a fraud.
I am sick of Washington fairy tales.
Most of Mr. Murtha’s caucus took donations from the defunct lobbying firm PMA. In fact PMA, during the 2007-2008 election cycle, according to Opensecrets.org, was the largest contributor to U.S. Reps. Mike Doyle of Pittsburgh, Micheal Capuano of Boston, Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island and Norm Dicks of Washington state. Dicks is the second-ranking member on Mr. Murtha’s defense appropriations committee.
Mr. Murtha’s caucus is no profile in courage. Why won’t Mr. Doyle go on the record to defend his mentor, Jack Murtha?
So the time has come for us to stand by our man – the ultimate delivery man, the man who has helped transform our economy and protect us from recession. Can you trust the people in Washington, the same folks who gave us the banking collapse and the bailout to protect your interests? Can you trust the Washington elite media, New York billionaires and the Rockefeller foundation with this region’s economic future?
No – you can only trust Jack Murtha.
Lastly, to my right-wing friends: I am a card-carrying Republican and neo-con. Maybe under George W. Bush, those interested in our nation’s defense could take Mr. Murtha for granted. Under Barack Obama, those who believe we need a strong defense to protect us from our enemies absolutely need to support Jack.
The ultimate aim of those left-wing extremist forces that want to hurt our congressman and his committee may be to cut our nation’s defense budget and therefore weaken our nation’s defense.
You may not agree with every statement he has made, but Mr. Murtha has spent his long career working for nothing more than jobs in this district and to build up our nation’s defense.
Jack deserves our bipartisan support from these sinister forces.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.

Let's hope Obama won't be a 'friend of Israel'

2008-11-15T12:53:00.001-05:00

Last update - 01:48 09/11/2008
Gideon Levy / Let's hope Obama won't be a 'friend of Israel'
By Gideon Levy

Tags: Occupation, Israel News

The march of parochialism started right away. The tears of excitement invoked by U.S. president-elect Barack Obama's wonderful speech had not yet dried, and back here people were already delving into the only real question they could think to ask: Is this good or bad for Israel? One after another, the analysts and politicians got up - all of them representing one single school of thought, of course and began prophesizing.

They spoke with the caution that the situation required, gritting their teeth as though their mouths were full of pebbles, trying to soothe all the fears and concerns. They searched and found signs in Obama: The promising appointment of the Israeli ex-patriots' son, whose father belonged to the Irgun, and maybe also Dennis Ross and Dan Kurtzer and Martin Indyk, who may, God willing, be included in the new administration.

But in the background, a dark cloud hovered above. Careful, danger. The black man, who had associated with Palestinian expats, who speaks of human rights, who favors diplomacy over war, who even wants to engage Iran in dialogue, who will allocate more funding for America's social needs than to weapons exports. He may not be the sort of "friend of Israel" that we have come to love in Washington, the kind of friend we have grown accustomed to.

What's the panic all about? The truth needs to be said: At the base of all of these fears is the angst that this president will push Israel to end the occupation and move toward peace.

Well, maybe Obama will not be a "friend of Israel." May the great change he is promising not omit his country's Mideast policy. May Obama herald not only a new America, but also a new Middle East.

When we say that someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean a friend of the occupation, a believer in Israel's self-armament, a fan of its language of strength and a supporter of all its regional delusions. When we say someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean someone who will give Israel a carte blanche for any violent adventure it desires, for rejecting peace and for building in the territories.

Israel's greatest friend in the White House, outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush, was someone like that. There is no other country where this man, who brought a string of disasters down upon his own nation and the world, would receive any degree of prestige and respect. Only in Israel.

Only in Israel does the prime minister place George Bush's portrait in his den, in his private home. Only in Israel does the prime minister travel to visit him in the White House.

That's because Bush was a friend of Israel. Israel's greatest friend. Bush let it embark on an unnecessary war in Lebanon. He did not prevent the construction of a single outpost. He may have encouraged Israel, in secret, to bomb Iran. He did not pressure Israel to move ahead with peace talks, he even held up negotiations with Syria, and he did not reproach Israel for its policy of targeted killings.

Bush also supported the siege on Gaza and participated in the boycott of Hamas, which was elected in a democratic election initiated by his own administration.

That's just how we like U.S. presidents. They give us a green light to do as we please. They fund, equip and arm us, and sit tight. Such is the classic friend of Israel, a friend who is an enemy, and enemy of peace and an enemy to Israel.

Let us now hope that Obama will not be like them. That he will reveal himself to be a true friend of Israel. That he will put his whole weight behind a deep American involvement in the Middle East, that he will try to solve the Iranian issue through negotiation - the only effective means. That he will help end the siege on Gaza and the boycott of Hamas, that he will push Israel and Syria to make peace, that he will spur Israel and the Palestinians to reach a settlement.

We should hope Obama will help Israel help itself, because that is how friendship is measured. That he will criticize its policy when he must, because that, too, is a test of true friendship.

Let him use his clout to end the occupation and dismantle the settlement project. Let him remember that human and civil rights also apply to the Palestinians, not only to black Americans. And apropos world peace, he needs to start with peace in the Middle East, home to the most dangerous of conflicts, which has been threatening the world for a century now, and is feeding international terrorism.

A true friend of Israel needs to remember that Israel may be "the only democracy in the Middle East," but not in its own backyard. That next to Sderot, which he visited, is Gaza. That "common values" must not include a cruel occupation. That friendship does not mean blind and automatic support.

Let him speak with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, as often as he can and with whomever is willing to talk. And let him do it before the next war, not after it. Let him remember that he has the power to do all that.

Changing the Middle East was in the power of each and every U.S. president, who could have pressured Israel and put an end to the occupation. Most of them kept their hands off as if it were a hot potato, all in the name of a wonderful friendship.

So bring us an American president who is not another dreadful "friend of Israel," an Obama who won't blindly follow the positions of the Jewish lobby and the Israeli government. You did promise change, did you not?

Propaganda

2008-10-11T10:57:00.001-05:00

Think about some of these as the elections move forward

"I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertising - and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours."
- Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.
Propaganda Quotes

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."
- Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965) U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Propaganda Quotes

"It's been demonstrated that well within two minutes of watching television, most people enter a hypnotic alpha state bordering on theta. Viewers in this state are no longer able to critically evaluate, discern, or pass judgment from their own moral database on the material being viewed. The information just flows, unimpeded, into their subconscious year in and year out."
- Jeff Rense, talk-radio host
Propaganda Quotes

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

U.S. Study Is Said to Warn of Crisis in Afghanistan

2008-10-11T07:36:00.002-05:00

"..Afghanistan is in a "downward spiral" and cast serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan Government to stem the rise in the Taliban's influence"

An article worth checking out

Reporter bashing, Palin in Church and Richard Holbrooke

2008-09-03T17:18:00.004-05:00

I happened across some interesting links:

Seems somewhat scary how the press corp is being handled by the police. I knew it was a dangerous occupation in other countries but I did not realize that it was such an issue here in the US.

The Democratic Convention
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1

The Republican Convention
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers

The second one is a bit more scary when you see the footage of the Chief reporter running out from the convention and then asking questions and immediately arrested after just watching the arrest of the camerawoman screaming “Press!” with the camera rolling.

VP Candidate Palin Church video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

The Next President
Mastering a Daunting Agenda
Richard Holbrooke
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2008
Summary: The next U.S. president will inherit a more difficult set of international challenges than any predecessor since World War II.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080901faessay87501/richard-holbrooke/the-next-president.html

A Free Press? Not This Time

2008-08-17T20:43:00.004-05:00

A Free Press? Not This Time
Washington Post
By Olga Ivanova
Friday, August 15, 2008; Page A21
I wish I could fly back to Russia. I have been in the United States for a year, and I am studying and working here to get experience in American journalism, known worldwide for its independence and professionalism. But in recent days it has felt as though I am too late, that the journalism of Watergate is well behind us and that reporting is no longer fair and balanced.

For years I have respected American newspapers for being independent. But no longer. Coverage of the conflict between Russia and Georgia has been unprofessional, to say the least. I was surprised and disappointed that the world's media immediately took the side of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili last week.

American newspapers have run story after story about how "evil" Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state. Many accounts made it seem as though the conflict was started by an aggressive Russia invading the Georgian territory of South Ossetia. Some said that South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, was destroyed by the Russian army. Little attention was paid to the chronology of events, the facts underlying the conflict.

Last week, Georgia's president invaded South Ossetia during the night, much as Adolf Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. Within hours, Georgian troops destroyed Tskhinvali, a city of 100,000, and they killed more than 2,000 civilians. Almost all of the people who died that night were Russian citizens. They chose to become citizens of Russia years ago, when Georgia refused to recognize South Ossetia as a non-Georgian territory.

The truth is that, in this case, Russian aggression actually made some sense. Russia defended its citizens....

(the rest of the story at the link in the title....Normally I don't comment on article but the conclusion is spot on:)

.....I think that both the Russian and Georgian governments attacked civilians. I blame the governments for this war. But I am also saddened by the unfair coverage of the conflict from Russian and American media. If this is what freedom of the press looks like, then I no longer want to believe in this freedom. I prefer to stay neutral and independent, just like a professional journalist has to do.

The writer, a master's degree candidate at Duquesne University, is an intern at The Post.
_______________________________________________________________________
Another interesting article in Asia Times:
_______________________________________________________________________
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH12Ag02.html
Russia bids to rid Georgia of its folly
Aug 12, 2008
By John Helmer

MOSCOW - One word explains why the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union have obliged themselves to sit on their hands, while Russia's defends its citizens, and national interests, in the Caucasus, and liberates Georgians from the folly of their unpopular president, Mikheil Saakashvili. That word is Kosovo.

Russia sent troops into the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia to take on Georgian troops that had advanced into the territory. Four days of heavy fighting have seen thousands of casualties and the Georgian forces withdrawing. Russian troops were reported on Monday to be continuing fighting in parts of Georgia, including around the capital Tbilisi.

For all Russians, not only those with relatives in Ossetia, the near-total destruction by Georgian guns of Tskhinvali is a war crime. The deaths of about 2,000 civilians in the Georgian attack, and the forced flight of about 35,000 survivors from the town - the last census of Tskhinvali's population reported 30,000 - has been described by Russian leaders, and is understood by Russian public opinion, as a form of genocide. Ninety percent of the town's population are Russian citizens.

To Russians, the Georgian attack of August 8 looks like the very same "ethnic cleansing", which the US and European powers have treated as a crime against humanity, when committed on the former territory of federal Yugoslavia.

....Public opinion in Georgia already pins the blame on Saakashvili for the folly and loss of the Ossetian adventure. Even before it began last week, opposition leaders were calling for an end to the militarization of the country. However, as one opposition leader said on Monday, the bombing has to stop, "Otherwise, the Russians are making Saakashvili the victim."

(the rest of the story at the link above the title)

_______________________________________________________________________
Another interesting article in Asia Times, and this was written early in the conflict before most news coverage and the "opinion" that Olga Ivanova speaks about in her Washington Post atricle.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH12Ag01.html

see below. this was hot off the press around the time President Bush was flying back from China
_______________________________________________________________________

Saakashvili overplays his hand
By Brian Whitmore

In an effort to prod the West to Tbilisi's side in its rapidly escalating armed conflict with Russia, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is invoking the ghosts of Cold War battles past - Moscow's suppression of the 1956 Hungarian uprising, the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan in 1979.

The Georgian leader's strategy is clear. Tbilisi's small army is no match for the Russian military machine. Saakashvili's only chance of success in his bid to regain control of the Moscow-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia, therefore, is to globalize the conflict and turn it into a central front of a new struggle between Moscow and the West.

"What Russia has been doing against Georgia for the last two days represents an open aggression, unprecedented in modern times," Saakashvili said in a televised address on August 8. "It is a direct challenge for the whole world. If Russia is not stopped today by the whole world, tomorrow Russian tanks might reach any European capital. I think everyone has understood this by now."

So far, the West has not taken the bait. The United States and the European Union are sending envoys to Georgia to try to broker a ceasefire and Western leaders have issued predictable statements calling on both sides to show restraint.

Most European leaders, wary of antagonizing Moscow, have strived to come across as more or less balanced in the conflict. Even Georgia's closest ally in the West, the United States, has thus far offered little more than rhetorical support.

Speaking in Beijing on August 9, US President George W Bush stepped up Washington's criticism of Moscow, calling for a halt to the shelling of Georgian targets. "Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected," Bush said. "We have urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops. We call for an end to the Russian bombings and a return by the parties to the status quo of August 6."

Trying to move West
Since coming to power after the country's 2003 Rose Revolution, Saakashvili has relentlessly sought to move Georgia into the Western orbit and out of Moscow's sphere of influence. To do that, however, the Georgian leader needed to resolve the standoffs over the pro-Moscow regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which broke from Georgia with Russian assistance following wars in the early 1990s.

Prior to Saakashvili's rise, Russia was the only international player in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, with troops in both regions under a Commonwealth of Independent States-sanctioned "peacekeeping" mission.

"Saakashvili has been trying to internationalize the conflicts in Georgia since he has come to office," says Sabine Freizer, the Europe program director for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank. "It has been very much his strategy to make this an international conflict between the traditional West and Russia, speaking in language of the Cold War and saying that this is really the last frontier. He's been racking up those kind of expressions in the past few days, but this is really nothing new."

The United States has been largely receptive to Saakashvili's efforts, championing Tbilisi's attempt to join NATO, helping to train Georgia's armed forces, and offering diplomatic support on the Abkhaz and South Ossetian conflicts.

Europe, on the other hand, has been largely divided. Some EU members like Germany and France, wary of antagonizing Moscow, have been reluctant to offer Georgia anything more than lukewarm support. Newer member states like Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic states, with fresh memories of Soviet domination, have been more forceful in support of Tbilisi.

Georgia moved into South Ossetia on August 7 in a large-scale operation to regain control of the Moscow-backed separatist region, following days of clashes in which both sides exchanged gun and mortar fire. Each side accuses the other of initiating the hostilities. The offensive sparked a furious reaction from Russia, which sent troops, military aircraft, and tanks to repel Georgian forces. It was the Russian military's first offensive outside its borders since the 1991 Soviet breakup.

It came as no surprise that the strongest European condemnation of Russia's incursion into South Ossetia thus far came from Lithuanian Foreign Minister Petras Vaitekunas, who said Moscow crossed "red lines" and committed "aggression and an outrageous violation of international law". Poland, likewise, has called for an emergency summit on South Ossetia.

Some analysts say that with the West divided, Saakashvili may have felt the need to try to resolve the conflicts in Georgia's favor quickly, before the Bush administration - which has been a very strong supporter of Tbilisi - leaves office:

"Why precisely now? What made Saakashvili decide that this was the right moment politically? In my opinion, one of the reasons is that Mikheil Saakashvili believes the current US administration has certain obligations toward him and the next presidential administration - particularly if this is a Democratic administration - won't feel it has any of these obligations and may modify the overall stance on Georgia," Fyodor Lukyanov, editor in chief of the Moscow-based journal Russia in Global Affairs, told RFE/RL's Russian Service in a recent interview.

If that is indeed the case, Saakashvili appears to have badly miscalculated by failing to anticipate Russia's robust response. And now that the long-simmering confrontation has escalated from a diplomatic and political clash into armed conflict, the West's options are increasingly limited.

"I really think he [Saakashvili] has taken it a step too far because if we were really going to push back the Russians, you would need something like a military intervention and that is not going to happen," Freizer says.

Analysts say the West does have some leverage over Russia. The EU, for example, could suspend negotiations over a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Moscow; the NATO-Russia Council could be dissolved; Russia could be prevented from joining the World Trade Organization, or even kicked out of the Group of Eight.

But its energy wealth, and the influence that buys, will likely prevent anything more than a mild rebuke. Moreover, the United States and the European Union badly need Russia's cooperation on issues like curbing Iran's nuclear program.

But in the end, Moscow's efforts to be viewed as a responsible global player will certainly suffer a serious blow due to the conflict.
"Russia's image is going to take a battering," Freizer says. "Russia has been trying increase its international legitimacy as a defender of international law, not only in the Caucasus but also we've been seeing this in the Balkans as well with the positions Russia has been taking on Kosovo. It is going to be more difficult for them to stand in front of the Security Council as the big defender of international law while they're bombing civilian targets and Georgian cities."

RFE/RL's Georgian and Russian services contributed to this report.

Copyright (c) 2007, RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC 20036

The beginning of cold war phase 2.0

2008-08-17T20:33:00.000-05:00

Bush tells Russia to get out of Georgia but Madvadev wants America to get out of Georgia – the beginning of cold war phase 2.0
Sudhir Chadda
Aug. 17, 2008

Russian President Madvadev has sent a chilling signal through his military. Bush Administration never anticipated an aggressive Russian Army and Air Force taking on Georgia with very little intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency.

US President George Bush has to do something otherwise other East European and Central Asian nations that are looking at US for getting out of the Russian clutch will lose their confidence in US.

Military option is a nonstarter. No the net result is the start of another cold war – Phase 2.0.

President Bush warned Russia on Saturday against trying to pry loose two separatist regions in Georgia and said Moscow must end military operations in the West-leaning democracy that once was part of the Soviet empire.

Can Russia really take control of its surrounding? IS US that weak with Iraq and Afghanistan’s prolonged confrontation? It is a test of US and Russia. Russia has the power and money of oil. Nationalism is Russia is now centered on bring US down to earth.

But do not underestimate US Military power either. US can theoretically surround Russian with Nuclear missiles and escalate the cold war.

Other than oil Russia is still weak. Russian military got a real boost from Georgian military operations but still it is no match to US military.

The key lies in US military resources. If US deploys its military (no matter how small a contingent) in Georgia, Poland and other countries at risk, Russians will think twice before launching an attack.

The war of words (typical) of cold war has started. But this cold war has the real danger of getting transformed into a real hot war all on a sudden.

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too

2008-06-05T07:45:00.000-05:00

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too
By Ryan Singel June 03, 2008 | 5:06:25 PMCategories: Election '08, NSA

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.
McCain's new tack towards the Bush administration's theory of executive power comes some 10 days after a McCain surrogate stated, incorrectly it seems, that the senator wanted hearings into telecom companies' cooperation with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, before he'd support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity.
As first reported by Threat Level, Chuck Fish, a full-time lawyer for the McCain campaign, also said McCain wanted stricter rules on how the nation's telecoms work with U.S. spy agencies, and expected those companies to apologize for any lawbreaking before winning amnesty.
But Monday, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, speaking for the campaign, disavowed those statements, and for the first time cast McCain's views on warrantless wiretapping as identical to Bush's.
[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]
We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.
The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush's longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war. The administration's analysis went so far as to say the Fourth Amendment did not apply inside the United States in the fight against terrorism, in one legal opinion from 2001.
McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
"I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is," McCain said.
The Globe's Charlie Savage pushed further, asking , "So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?" To which McCain answered, "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."
McCain's embrace of extrajudicial domestic wiretapping is effectively a bounce-back from Fish's comments, made at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Connecticut last month. When liberal blogs picked up the story that McCain had moved to the left on wiretapping, the McCain campaign issued a letter insisting that he still supported unconditional immunity, as well as new rules that would expand the nation's spy powers.
The campaign's response was consistent with McCain's past positions and votes. But it riled Andrew McCarthy at the conservative National Review Online, who read the campaign's position as a disavowal of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, and a wimpy surrender of executive power to Congress.
"What does it mean when he says Sen. McCain does not want the telecoms put into this position again?" McCarthy asked. "Is he saying that in a time of national crisis, the president should not be permitted to ask the telecoms for assistance that is arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute?"
That's when the campaign issued the letter explaining McCain's new views of executive power, and revealing that McCain would, in certain future circumstances, rely on the same theory of executive power in wartime.
A spokesperson for McCain's camp did not respond to a request Monday for an explanation of the difference between the new policy and the December interview.

More commercial bee colonies lost

2008-05-07T06:54:00.000-05:00

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A survey of bee health released Tuesday revealed a grim picture, with 36.1 percent of the nation's commercially managed hives lost since last year.

Last year's survey commissioned by the Apiary Inspectors of America found losses of about 32 percent.

As beekeepers travel with their hives this spring to pollinate crops around the country, it's clear the insects are buckling under the weight of new diseases, pesticide drift and old enemies like the parasitic varroa mite, said Dennis vanEngelsdorp, president of the group.

This is the second year the association has measured colony deaths across the country. This means there aren't enough numbers to show a trend, but clearly bees are dying at unsustainable levels and the situation is not improving, said vanEngelsdorp, also a bee expert with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

"For two years in a row, we've sustained a substantial loss," he said. "That's an astonishing number. Imagine if one out of every three cows, or one out of every three chickens, were dying. That would raise a lot of alarm."

The survey included 327 operators who account for 19 percent of the country's approximately 2.44 million commercially managed beehives. The data is being prepared for submission to a journal.

About 29 percent of the deaths were due to colony collapse disorder, a mysterious disease that causes adult bees to abandon their hives. Beekeepers who saw CCD in their hives were much more likely to have major losses than those who didn't.

"What's frightening about CCD is that it's not predictable or understood," vanEngelsdorp said.

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff announced that the state would pour an additional $20,400 into research at Pennsylvania State University looking for the causes of CCD. This raises emergency funds dedicated to investigating the disease to $86,000.

The issue also has attracted federal grants and funding from companies that depend on honeybees, including ice-cream maker Haagen-Dazs.

Because the berries, fruits and nuts that give about 28 of Haagen-Dazs' varieties flavor depend on honeybees for pollination, the company is donating up to $250,000 to CCD and sustainable pollination research at Penn State and the University of California, Davis

Obama’s modest proposal: no hue, no cry?

2008-04-17T23:01:00.001-05:00

Obama’s modest proposal: no hue, no cry?

by Greg Zsidisin
Monday, April 7, 2008
[Editor’s Note: This is part 1 of a three-part article.]

If elected President, Senator Barack Obama plans to delay Project Constellation for at least five years, putting the saved money into a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence, nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond.

Why single out the space budget to cut for this program? “NASA is no longer associated with inspiration,” Obama told a campaign rally audience in March. The silence from space advocacy groups in response to this policy, made public in November, has been deafening. As I have discovered in recent weeks, Obama is personally adamant about this approach, if the details of its implementation remain hazy.

The proposal
Obama’s education platform document, released last November, ends with the following paragraph (emphasis added):

IX. A COMMITMENT TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.

The trouble is, it’s not really clear exactly what part(s) of the NASA budget Obama would cut to pay for getting the under-four set into pre-K programs.
The “early education plan” in question is a proposed “Zero to Five Plan” aimed at nationalizing an Obama-supported program in Illinois. This plan would create a “Presidential Early Learning Council”, fund and expand state funded pre-K programs, encourage universal pre-school in all states, and even “expand evidence-based home visiting programs to all low-income, first-time mothers” to “help improve the mental and physical health of the family.” Existing pre-K efforts aren’t good enough: “Pre-kindergarten for four-year-olds is important, but it is not enough to ensure children will arrive at school ready to learn.”

The trouble is, it’s not really clear exactly what part(s) of the NASA budget Obama would cut to pay for getting the under-four set into pre-K programs. Obama’s separately released quasi-official space policy does indeed leave out any mention of the Moon or Mars, Constellation’s intended ultimate destinations. However, it states support for development of the Ares 1 rocket and Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). “As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States’ reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed with technology that is already proven and available.”

Since Constellation is focused in its early years on Ares 1 and CEV development, what exactly will be deleted? Specific lunar exploration planning? Downstream work on the Ares 5 heavy-lift rocket? These aren’t specified, but in any event cutting them will provide no real benefit in the earlier years of an Obama administration.

It is probably fair to point out here that there are two other presidential candidates, and both have refreshingly provided specific – if not precise – statements on space.

In a short page on his campaign website, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain says he is “proud to have sponsored legislation authorizing funding consistent with the President’s vision for the space program, which includes a return of astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars.” This convoluted statement, which seems to imply that he wants us to continue to work on Constellation’s Moon/Mars goals, falls under the airy lead quote attributed to McCain: “Let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us.”

Clinton, meanwhile, in a science policy statement issued on Sputnik’s 50th anniversary, said she wants “a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.” While she hasn’t endorsed Moon/Mars, she has spoken of the need to develop the Ares launch vehicle. Her policy does imply that she might seek a reorienting of NASA priorities, in that it specifically calls for more money for Earth monitoring, climate change studies, and aeronautics.

Obama in Wyoming
As fate would have it, I had the chance to ask Obama about his policy at a recent town hall meeting in Wyoming. In an unlikely scenario, both he and Clinton were stumping through this lightly populated, heavily Republican state in their tight battle for convention delegates. While Clinton did not take questions at her Casper rally, Obama did.

It was clear to me that, at least as of early March 2008, Barack Obama is vocally insistent that we should forget about the Moon or Mars.
Frankly, Obama showed himself to be eloquent, forthright, smart, and engaging. Watching him in person, it was easy to see why he has become the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Personally, I now have no doubt he would be a formidable opponent to John McCain in the general election.

Mine was the third question after his short speech, after one off-mike query that I think was an autograph request, and another about the plight of Native American children on Wyoming’s Wind River Reservation.

After a brief summary of the policy, I asked, “Why are you specifically pitting the space program against education, and where’s the vision in shutting down the [human] space program?”

My question, and Senator Obama’s response, were included in several newspaper accounts. As recounted by John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune:

During the question-and-answer portion of an event at a recreational center here, Obama was asked about the nation's space program.

“I grew up on Star Trek,” Obama said. “I believe in the final frontier.”

But Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer.

“NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration,” he said. “I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore.”

Obama seemed to resent my question. A little later, he addressed another on energy, and spoke of the need for an alternative energy effort. He concluded by turning to my direction and saying pointedly, “And that, sir, is what our next Apollo Program should be.”

It was clear to me that, at least as of early March 2008, Barack Obama is vocally insistent that we should forget about the Moon or Mars, and use the money to fund part of his Zero-to-Five Plan.

Where is everybody?
Even if this policy were merely election-year posturing, even if Congress would squelch such a plan, the space community faces a good possibility of having four or eight years under an antagonistic President who considers space little more than a budget target.

If enacted, of course, it would have a significant impact on the future of space, especially coming as it does with the scheduled end of the shuttle in 2010, concerns over a space workforce “brain drain” akin to that after Apollo, and uncertainty over the future course of space exploration.

Wouldn’t spaceflight advocates at least respond to the notion that exploration is superfluous enough to be de-funded to pay a fraction of the cost of a pre-K education initiative?

Wouldn’t those inclined to see the current Moon/Mars effort scrapped for something else, such as a “better” space effort, or a movement towards more commercial spaceflight, use this as an opportunity to advocate their visions?

For a variety of reasons, the answer appears to be basically “No.” I decided to find out why, and that will be the subject of Part 2 of this article.

Greg Zsidisin organized a number grassroots space demonstrations and rallies for the National Space Society, including one outside the 1992 Democratic National Convention in Manhattan. The views expressed here are strictly his own.

Stage Set for Transfer of CIA Records to National Archives

2008-04-17T22:54:00.001-05:00

A memorandum of understanding (pdf) signed this month by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Archivist is expected to enable the transfer of many permanently valuable historical CIA records that are 50 years old or older to the custody of the National Archives (NARA), officials of both agencies said today.

Up to now, “we haven’t had a framework” for such transfers, said Joe Lambert, the new CIA chief information officer. And so, with few exceptions, “we haven’t transferred anything [to the Archives] in the past.” (Exceptions include certain CIA records related to the JFK assassination, Nazi war crimes, and a few other topics, as well as translations of foreign news reports.)

The new memorandum “lays the groundwork for routine transfer of CIA records” to the National Archives once they become 50 years old, said Assistant Archivist Michael J. Kurtz. “This will institutionalize the process.”

The memorandum itself does not seem very promising. It imposes a number of binding requirements on NARA officials, including referral to CIA of any request for records that have not already been approved for public release. No binding requirements are imposed on CIA, beyond an open-ended commitment to “review” any such requests.

But Allen Weinstein, the Archivist of the United States, said the memorandum would pave the way for regular transfers of CIA records to the Archives, and would ultimately result in improved public access to those records.

“Access is a multi-step process,” said Gary M. Stern, General Counsel at the National Archives. “Getting the records into the Archives is the first step.”

Having “listened carefully to the words and the music, I was convinced that this [agreement] would serve the public interest,” said Dr. Weinstein. “I wouldn’t have signed it otherwise.”

The memorandum’s words, at least, can be found here: fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/nara-cia.pdf

CIA is expected to provide to NARA an index of records subject to transfer in the next few weeks, with actual transfers to follow sometime thereafter.

A March 2000 National Archives evaluation of “Records Management in the Central Intelligence Agency” provided some detailed insight into the subject.

At that time, NARA held that “CIA retention of permanent files for 50 years is no longer appropriate” and should be reduced to something closer to 30 years. But by default and inaction, 50 year retention of records by CIA has now become the goal that the agencies are striving for.

Behind Obama and Clinton

2008-04-13T07:37:00.002-05:00

For some time I have been trying to find out "who's on the team" of the Presidential candidates. Trying to determine who influences the candidates positions. The following is some of what I have found:

Behind Obama and Clinton
Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:34:24 -0600
By Stephen Zunes
Who's whispering in their ears says a lot
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.
The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they’ll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams
Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor – and her likely choice for Secretary of State – is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.
Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power – author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq – and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Contrasting Issues
While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military.
While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that “If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”
While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the current top-down neo-liberal lines.
Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists that “the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.
Iraq as Key Indicator
Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.
Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.
Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.
As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.
Pre-War Positions
During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”
By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”
Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.
Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”
By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”
Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.
And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.
These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.
National Security
Not every one of Clinton’s foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches.”
And new approaches are definitely needed.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco and an analyst at Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article was republished from with permission.

Beware, Inventors Worldwide

2008-03-31T03:22:00.001-05:00

Beware, Inventors Worldwide
Shun-Kuo Su 03.18.08, 6:00 AM ET
http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/14/patents-taiwan-reform-oped-cx_sks_0318patents.html?partner=alerts
Many Americans probably assume that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awards patents exclusively to American inventors. But in 2006, almost half of all patents granted by the U.S. were awarded to foreigners.

Why so much foreign interest in the American system? U.S. patents are renowned for being the world's strongest form of intellectual property protection.

It's therefore puzzling that the U.S. Congress is looking to radically change this system. Given America's growing concern about its image abroad, U.S. leaders would be making a grave error undermining their patent system. It stands as a key component of America's soft power.

What is Congress looking to do?

First, it would replace America's unique "first-to-invent" rule with a "first-to-file" system. Under "first-to-invent," the first person to actually invent a product is granted a patent. "First-to-file" merely awards the first person to arrive at the patent office.

"First-to-file" stacks the deck against individuals and small firms, as only large corporations have the legal and financial resources to navigate the patent bureaucracy effectively.

Second, the bill would eliminate patent-holders' protection against frivolous lawsuits. A cumbersome post-grant review process would be the new method of adjudication, allowing patents to be challenged almost indefinitely.

These and other changes in the proposed legislation would cause inventors' costs to skyrocket. Patent values would erode as their legal stature fall into question.

That uncertainty spells trouble for the future of research-intensive innovation. Currently, foreigners are driving much of the innovation passing through the Patent Office. Inventors the world over depend on the U.S. to protect the intellectual property that drives their entrepreneurial ambitions.

Without its strong patent system, the American market would look significantly less appealing--and American influence would wane considerably.

My home country of Taiwan, for example, relies heavily on the American patent system. In 2006, Taiwanese inventors edged out their U.S. counterparts, nabbing 3.3 patents per 10,000 inhabitants, compared with 3.1 per 10,000 in the U.S.

And it is not just Taiwanese inventors flocking to the U.S. Patent Office. It's the busiest patent authority in the world; of the nearly 450,000 patent applications received by the U.S. Patent Office in 2006, about 210,000 were filed by foreigners.

Weakening the U.S. patent system would damage an important source of foreign goodwill toward America. The ramifications would be especially damaging to important allies.

Even more distressing, the U.S. Congress seems strangely unconcerned that large-scale counterfeiters and copycat artists would profit handsomely under the new system. Such companies, often wholly or partly state-sponsored, thrive on weak protection of intellectual property rights.

The Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO) in Thailand is a great example. In late 2006 and early 2007, the state-owned company violated the patents of three popular drugs: the anti-AIDS medicines Kaletra and Efavirenz and the heart-disease drug Plavix. Thailand's government blessed the move.

It's likely that organizations like the GPO will be even more brazen in seizing intellectual property if patent protections are weakened.

Other copycat companies have already said they will do as much. "Seeking invalidation of patents is likely to be a part of the patent strategy that Indian generics companies may follow in the U.S.," promised the secretary general of the Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance.

Such a coordinated attack on American patents would be devastating to inventors--and to consumers who rely on their products.

In deciding whether to pass the Patent Reform Act, Congress must choose whether it wants to protect the world's most productive and innovative minds or prop up manufacturers whose only contributions are made through imitation.

The choice should be easy.

Mr. Shun-Kuo Su served as Majority Whip of Taiwan's Provincial Assembly from 1977 to 1980. He also served as a professor of law at the Chinese Culture University. He is currently chairman of a nonprofit organization promoting better ties between Taiwan and the U.S.

Coming Soon: Nothing Between You and Your Machine

2008-03-10T06:54:00.000-05:00

Coming Soon: Nothing Between You and Your Machine
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: March 9, 2008
Menlo Park, Calif.

IT has been more than two decades since Scotty tried to use a computer mouse as a microphone to control a Macintosh in “Star Trek IV.”

Since then, personal computer users have continued to live under the tyranny of the mice, windows, icons and pull-down menus originally invented at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in the 1970s and popularized by Apple and Microsoft in the next decade.

Last year, however, the arrival of the Nintendo Wii and the Apple iPhone began to break down the logjam in technological innovation for the way humans interact with computers.

Both devices extend the idea of directly controlling objects on the screen and blending that ability with visually compelling physics software that brings computer screens to life in new, immersive ways. With a Wii, a wave of the hand can slam a tennis ball in cyberspace; with the iPhone, a flick of a finger can slide a photograph across the screen like paper on a table.

The idea of directly manipulating information on a computer screen is almost as old computer graphics terminals, going back at least to 1963, to Ivan Sutherland’s Sketchpad drawing system he created at M.I.T. for his Ph.D. thesis. Since then, a thriving scientific and engineering discipline has sprung up around systems that bridge what was originally called the man-machine interface. There has been a broad exploration of pointing devices, alternatives to keyboards for entering information, voice-recognition technologies, and even sensors that capture and interact with human brain waves.

What is new is a convergence of more powerful and less expensive computer hardware and an inspired set of mostly younger software designers who came of age well past the advent of the original graphical user interface paradigm of the 1970s and ’80s.

This new generation is “mostly under 25,” said Joy Mountford, who until last month was vice president for design innovation at an advanced development group at Yahoo. “They come from a world of fluid media, and they multitask at an extraordinary level.”

One intriguing example of this new immersive approach to Web navigation is the PicLens software from Cooliris, a 10-person start-up based here.

This software plug-in for Web browsers tries to make it possible to navigate, find and share information by directly browsing the images, video and other digital media that are increasingly common on the Web.

PicLens currently offers a small icon cue inset in each Web photo that lets users know they are at a site like Facebook, Google or Flickr that can be browsed with the software. Clicking on the icon transports the user away from the conventional page-oriented Web into an immersive browsing environment.

The software does away with the browser frame and gives the user the effect of flying through a three-dimensional space that feels like an unending hallway of images. In the future, the Cooliris designers plan to make it possible to browse text and video as well.

“I’ve wondered for a long time why the computer interface hasn’t changed from 20 years ago,” said Austin Shoemaker, a former Apple Computer software engineer and now chief technology officer of Cooliris. “People should think of a computer interface less as a tool and more as a extension of themselves or as extension of their mind.”

Some of these ideas can be traced back to the 1990s, to work done at the M.I.T. Media Lab. In 2002, a former student there, John Underkoffler, brought the idea of direct manipulation to life in “Minority Report,” the science-fiction movie. (In the movie, Tom Cruise interacts with a wall-size transparent computer display directly with his hands.) More recently, the idea of a multitouch display, where images could be moved or scaled by direct touch, was brought to life both by Jeff Han, a computer science researcher at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University and by W. Daniel Hillis and Bran Ferren, researchers at the consulting firm Applied Minds, who developed a “touch table” world map.

The transition to more immersive displays is happening in part because of more powerful computer hardware, but also because of an explosion of more powerful programming tools. These tools offer visual effects that were once within the grasp of only the most skillful programmers to a wide audience with only basic skills.

“The old paradigm is breaking down,” said Paul Mercer, senior director of software at Palm Inc. “It used to be that you needed to be a visionary and technologist like Michelangelo, but we’re turning that corner.”

INDEED, the more powerful graphics-oriented software has spilled over into the creation of palettes for a new generation of software-oriented artists. One new programming language, Processing, is an extension of Sun’s Java designed specifically for students, artists, designers, researchers and hobbyists who are interested in programming images, animations and interactions. It has been used extensively at “Design and the Elastic Mind,” a digital art exhibition now at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

Voice, too, is finally beginning to play a significant role as an interface tool in a new generation of consumer-oriented wireless handsets. Many technologists now believe that hunting and pecking on the tiny keyboards of cellphones and P.D.A.’s will quickly give way to voice commands that will return map, text and other data displayed visually on small screens.

“We’re on the verge of creating something as compelling as touch, except with voice,” said Mike McCue, general manager of the Tellme subsidiary of Microsoft.

The common theme of all of the technologies will be a new kind of immersive experience.

“If you’re looking for what’s next after the Web browser, this is it,” said Bill Joy, a partner at the Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, the venture firm that is funding Cooliris.

Whistle-Blower: Feds Have a Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier

2008-03-06T23:14:00.000-05:00

Whistle-Blower: Feds Have a Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier -- Congress Reacts
By Kevin Poulsen March 06, 2008 | 8:15:00 PMCategories: Spooks Gone Wild

A U.S. government office in Quantico, Virginia, has direct, high-speed access to a major wireless carrier's systems, exposing customers' voice calls, data packets and physical movements to uncontrolled surveillance, according to a computer security consultant who says he worked for the carrier in late 2003.
"What I thought was alarming is how this carrier ended up essentially allowing a third party outside their organization to have unfettered access to their environment," Babak Pasdar, now CEO of New York-based Bat Blue told Threat Level. "I wanted to put some access controls around it; they vehemently denied it. And when I wanted to put some logging around it, they denied that."
Pasdar won't name the wireless carrier in question, but his claims are nearly identical to unsourced allegations made in a federal lawsuit filed in 2006 against four phone companies and the U.S. government for alleged privacy violations. That suit names Verizon Wireless as the culprit.
Pasdar has executed a seven-page affidavit for the nonprofit Government Accountability Project in Washington, which on Tuesday began circulating the document (.pdf), along with talking points (.doc), to congressional staffers hashing out a Republican proposal to grant retroactive legal immunity to phone companies who cooperated in the warrantless wiretapping of Americans.
According to his affidavit, Pasdar tumbled to the surveillance superhighway in September 2003, when he led a "Rapid Deployment" team hired to revamp security on the carrier's internal network. He noticed that the carrier's officials got squirrelly when he asked about a mysterious "Quantico Circuit" -- a 45 megabit/second DS-3 line linking its most sensitive network to an unnamed third party.
Quantico, Virginia, is home to a Marine base. But perhaps more relevantly, it's also the center of the FBI's electronic surveillance operations.
"The circuit was tied to the organization's core network," Pasdar writes in his affidavit. "It had access to the billing system, text messaging, fraud detection, web site, and pretty much all the systems in the data center without apparent restrictions."
The 2006 lawsuit (.pdf), which is suspended pending an appeals court ruling, describes a similar arrangement, naming Verizon.
Because the data center was a clearing house for all Verizon Wireless calls, the transmission line provided the Quantico recipient direct access to all content and all information concerning the origin and termination of telephone calls placed on the Verizon Wireless network as well as the actual content of calls.
The transmission line was unprotected by any firewall and would have enabled the recipient on the Quantico end to have unfettered access to Verizon Wireless customer records, data and information. Any customer databases, records and information could be downloaded from this center.
That doesn't mean Pasdar's affidavit confirms the claims in the lawsuit. He acknowledges speaking with the attorneys on that lawsuit before it was filed, so he may be the source in that complaint as well. But he insists he did not name Verizon or any other phone company to the lawyers.
"I don't know if I have a smoking gun, but I'm certainly fairly confident in what I saw and I'm convinced it was being leveraged in a less than forthright and upfront manner," Pasdar says.
Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis says he can't confirm or deny a Quantico arrangement, or comment on whether Pasdar did contract work for the company.
"What you're talking about sounds as if it would be classified and involving national security, so I wouldn't be able to find out the facts," Thonis writes in an e-mail.
Postscript: In response to some of the comments here and elsewhere: No, it's not CALEA. CALEA requires phone companies to give the FBI real time access to call content and call detail information on specific targets when presented with a warrant. It does not oblige them to give the FBI or anyone else direct unmonitored access to switches, billing systems or databases.
For more on the FBI's CALEA network, check out Ryan's article on the subject from last year.
Update: Democratic leaders in the House are taking Pasdar's claims seriously. John Dingell, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, wrote a Dear Colleague letter (.pdf) today, addressing the issue.
Mr. Pasdar's allegations are not new to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but our attempts to verify and investigate them further have been blocked at every turn by the Administration. Moreover, the whistleblower's allegations echo those in an affidavit filed by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit against AT&T. ...
Because legislators should not vote before they have sufficient facts, we continue to insist that all House Members be given access to the necessary information, including the relevant documents underlying this matter, to make an informed decision on their vote. After reviewing the documentation and these latest allegations, Members should be given adequate time to properly evaluate the separate question of retroactive immunity."

Machinists Urge U.S. to Halt Technology Transfers to China

2008-03-04T20:25:00.001-05:00

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) is calling on the U.S. Department of Commerce to suspend a new program that allows companies in China to gain expedited access to sensitive U.S. aerospace technology, including telecommunication and composites technologies with potential military applications.

"It is naive to assume that relaxing export restrictions on sensitive aerospace technology does not represent a significant threat to U.S. jobs, companies and communities," says IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger. "It is equally naive to ignore the national security implications of such technology transfers to China."

In a letter to the Under Secretary of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, Buffenbarger took issue with one company in China that was recently approved for such expedited technology transfers under the Commerce Department's Validated End-User program.

"The approval of one of these companies, Boeing Hexcel AVIC I Joint venture will involve work on the Boeing 787 program that could have been performed by U.S. workers," says Buffenbarger. "We find it very difficult to believe that your actions are good for U.S. workers or the U.S. economy."

The Boeing Hexcel venture represents additional national security concerns, according to a report by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, an independent research foundation that monitors the spread of arms technology. "Reducing control on exports to such companies increases the risk that American goods will help China improve its armed forces, and that American goods will be sent illicitly to Syria or Iran." The Wisconsin Report also notes that Boeing and Hexcel have been cited in the past for multiple violations of export controls.

The IAM is among the nation's largest labor unions, representing nearly 720,000 members in manufacturing, transportation, shipbuilding and defense related industries. Click http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/reports/2007/inchinawetrust.pdf to view the Wisconsin Project Report. For more information about the IAM, visit: www.goiam.org.

Are Patents Headed For Extinction?

2008-02-26T05:51:00.000-05:00

Well put!

Commentary
Are Patents Headed For Extinction?
Joe Kiani 02.25.08, 6:00 AM ET

IRVINE, CALIF. -
Successful free enterprise requires an effective system of property ownership rights. Economists like Hernando de Soto believe that such rights are the underpinning of capitalism and explain how for decades America's strong patent system has fostered economic growth and innovation in the face of intensifying international competition. Although many factory jobs have moved overseas, knowledge workers have enjoyed improved living standards in the United States.

That picture will change for the worse if the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S.1145), now being considered by the Senate, is enacted in its present form. This bill, together with two recent patent-unfriendly Supreme Court rulings, represents one of the worst assaults on intellectual property protection in the 218-year history of our patent system.

By undermining the value and certainty of patents, the bill could inflict a long-term blow on our economy, innovation and innovative companies--particularly small, entrepreneurial medical technology companies. That's bad news for patients, clinicians and our health care system. These companies devise revolutionary medical technologies that save lives and lower costs by shortening hospital stays, reducing medical errors, and eliminating risky procedures. But these inventions require entrepreneurial spirit and huge investments, which are only encouraged by adequate patent protection.

Investing in medical technology start-ups is a high-stakes gamble. These inventions require years of costly research and development, clinical testing and regulatory approval before they can be marketed. Many great ideas never make it. Investors need assurance that a new venture's patents are secure.

I would never have been able to raise (after mortgaging my condo) the nearly $100 million required to develop and market our breakthrough pulse oximeters if I couldn't offer the assurance that the devices would be protected from marauders. In fact, in 2004, a jury awarded Masimo (nasdaq: MASI - news - people ) $134 million in a patent case against our dominant rival, which infringed our patents shortly after we introduced our product.

The harm the new patent bill promises to inflict on innovation and property rights far outweighs any possible benefit from any worthwhile provisions.

Three provisions are especially troubling. One would restrict damages levied on infringers in patent lawsuits by basing the award on the price difference between the infringing and previous product. Every consumer knows that new products--PCs, software, cellphones, for instance--that incorporate cool new features are often sold at the same or lower price than previous versions. Under this scenario, the inventor whose innovation was taken from him would probably receive no damages under S. 1145.

Another onerous change would diminish a patent's value by permitting it to be challenged not just for a relatively short period of time after it is granted, but for its entire life.

Then there's the disturbing "Pre-Grant Publication" section of the bill. The patent grant is a bargain between an inventor and the public that was conferred by the Constitution. In return for disclosing his invention, the inventor is given a limited time (15 to 20 years) to exclude others from using it. However, the current proposal would require him to disclose his ideas well before he is told what protection, if any, he will receive in return. That is not right.

In fact, this bill may turn out to be a severe blow to a patent system that has already been significantly eroded by two recent Supreme Court rulings. In May 2006, in eBay (nasdaq: EBAY - news - people ) vs. MercExchange, the Court limited the use of permanent injunctions in infringement cases. Then in April 2007, in KSR International vs. Teleflex (nyse: TFX - news - people ), the Court lowered the standard for demonstrating that a patent is invalid because it appears obvious.

The full impact of these rulings remains unclear. Accordingly, I recommend that Congress either postpone new patent legislation or eliminate the provisions that will weaken our patent system, until we can gauge the effect of these decisions.

In making this proposal, I was inspired by a story that one of my engineering professors used to tell to highlight the importance of feedback and control theory. "If people had paused to see how many buffaloes they had already killed before they killed more, the buffaloes would not have become practically extinct." Likewise, if Congress enacts this legislation--which was conceived prior to the Supreme Court rulings--before assessing the impact of those rulings, patent protection could go the way of the buffalo.

This patent bill is being promoted by America's largest information technology companies, notably IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), Cisco (nasdaq: CSCO - news - people ), HP (nyse: HPQ - news - people ), Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ) and Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ). Even though these companies have flourished under the protection of the existing patent system, they are now attacking it.

Perhaps they don't recognize the unintended consequences of the changes they're seeking. But the Chinese certainly do. In a November 2007 article in Chinese Intellectual Property News, Cheng Yongshun, a respected Chinese intellectual property judge, wrote that this bill will be "friendlier to the infringers than to the patentees in general, as it will make the patent less reliable, easier to be challenged and cheaper to be infringed." That, of course, will allow more knockoff Chinese products to flood the U.S. market.

So while the supporters of this bill may benefit in the short term from unrestrained patent infringement, I believe that they and the rest of the world will suffer in the long run.

American ingenuity and innovation are beacons of progress for the world. But they can't survive without strong intellectual property protection. At a time when our economy is slowing and health care costs continue to rise, lawmakers must encourage innovation by strengthening patent protection rather than weakening it. Regrettably, this bill, as it now stands, would do the latter.

Joe Kiani is the founder and CEO of Irvine, Calif.-based Masimo.

Holy War! Researchers say EEs have a 'terrorist mindset'

2008-01-30T08:44:00.001-05:00

Holy War! Researchers say EEs have a 'terrorist mindset'

Junko Yoshida
(01/28/2008 10:07 AM EST)
URL: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205920319

MANHASSET, N.Y. " Is there a thread that ties engineers to Islamic terrorism?
There certainly is, according to Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog at Oxford University, who recently published a paper titled, "Engineers of Jihad." The authors call the link to terrorism "the engineer's mindset."

The sociology paper published last November, which has been making rounds over the Internet and was recently picked up by The Atlantic, uses illustrative statistics and qualitative data to conclude that there is a strong relationship between an engineering background and involvement in a variety of Islamic terrorist groups. The authors have found that graduates in subjects such as science, engineering, and medicine are strongly overrepresented among Islamist movements in the Muslim world. The authors also note that engineers, alone, are strongly over-represented among graduates who gravitate to violent groups.

However, contrary to popular speculation, it's not technical skills that make engineers attractive recruits to radical groups. Rather, the authors pose the hypothesis that "engineers have a 'mindset' that makes them a particularly good match for Islamism," which becomes explosive when fused by the repression and vigorous radicalization triggered by the social conditions they endured in Islamic countries.

But what is the engineer's mindset?

The authors call it a mindset that inclines them to take more extreme conservative and religious positions.

A past survey in the United States has already shown that the proportion of engineers who declare themselves to be on the right of the political spectrum is greater than any other disciplinary groups--such as economists, doctors, scientists, and those in the humanities and social sciences.

The authors note that the mindset is universal.

Whether American, Canadian or Islamic, they pointed out that a disproportionate share of engineers seem to have a mindset that makes them open to the quintessential right-wing features of "monism" (why argue where there is one best solution) and by "simplism" (if only people were rational, remedies would be simple).

Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring

2008-01-27T11:34:00.000-05:00

Bush Order Expands Network Monitoring
Intelligence Agencies to Track Intrusions
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 26, 2008; Page A03
President Bush signed a directive this month that expands the intelligence community's role in monitoring Internet traffic to protect against a rising number of attacks on federal agencies' computer systems.

The directive, whose content is classified, authorizes the intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency, to monitor the computer networks of all federal agencies -- including ones they have not previously monitored.
Until now, the government's efforts to protect itself from cyber-attacks -- which run the gamut from hackers to organized crime to foreign governments trying to steal sensitive data -- have been piecemeal. Under the new initiative, a task force headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will coordinate efforts to identify the source of cyber-attacks against government computer systems. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security will work to protect the systems and the Pentagon will devise strategies for counterattacks against the intruders.

There has been a string of attacks on networks at the State, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security departments in the past year and a half. U.S. officials and cyber-security experts have said Chinese Web sites were involved in several of the biggest attacks back to 2005, including some at the country's nuclear-energy labs and large defense contractors.

The NSA has particular expertise in monitoring a vast, complex array of communications systems -- traditionally overseas. The prospect of aiming that power at domestic networks is raising concerns, just as the NSA's role in the government's warrantless domestic-surveillance program has been controversial.

"Agencies designed to gather intelligence on foreign entities should not be in charge of monitoring our computer systems here at home," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Lawmakers with oversight of homeland security and intelligence matters say they have pressed the administration for months for details.

The classified joint directive, signed Jan. 8 and called the National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23, has not been previously disclosed. Plans to expand the NSA's role in cyber-security were reported in the Baltimore Sun in September.

According to congressional aides and former White House officials with knowledge of the program, the directive outlines measures collectively referred to as the "cyber initiative," aimed at securing the government's computer systems against attacks by foreign adversaries and other intruders. It will cost billions of dollars, which the White House is expected to request in its fiscal 2009 budget.

"The president's directive represents a continuation of our efforts to secure government networks, protect against constant intrusion attempts, address vulnerabilities and anticipate future threats," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. He would not discuss the initiative's details.

The initiative foreshadows a policy debate over the proper role for government as the Internet becomes more dangerous.

Supporters of cyber-security measures say the initiative falls short because it doesn't include the private sector -- power plants, refineries, banks -- where analysts say 90 percent of the threat exists.

"If you don't include industry in the mix, you're keeping one of your eyes closed because the hacking techniques are likely the same across government and commercial organizations," said Alan Paller, research director at the SANS Institute, a Bethesda-based cyber-security group that assists companies that face attacks. "If you're looking for needles in the haystack, you need as much data as you can get because these are really tiny needles, and bad guys are trying to hide the needles."

Under the initiative, the NSA, CIA and the FBI's Cyber Division will investigate intrusions by monitoring Internet activity and, in some cases, capturing data for analysis, sources said.

The Pentagon can plan attacks on adversaries' networks if, for example, the NSA determines that a particular server in a foreign country needs to be taken down to disrupt an attack on an information system critical to the U.S. government. That could include responding to an attack against a private-sector network, such as the telecom industry's, sources said.

Also, as part of its attempt to defend government computer systems, the Department of Homeland Security will collect and monitor data on intrusions, deploy technologies for preventing attacks and encrypt data. It will also oversee the effort to reduce Internet portals across government to 50 from 2,000, to make it easier to detect attacks.

"The government has taken a solid step forward in trying to develop cyber-defenses," said Paul B. Kurtz, a security consultant and former special adviser to the president on critical infrastructure protection. Kurtz said the initiative's purpose is not to spy on Americans. "The thrust here is to protect networks."

One of the key questions is whether it is necessary to read communications to investigate an intrusion.

Ed Giorgio, a former NSA analyst who is now a security consultant for ODNI, said, "If you're looking inside a DoD system and you see data flows going to China, that ought to set off a red flag. You don't need to scan the content to determine that."

But often, traffic analysis is not enough, some experts said. "Knowing the content -- that a communication is sensitive -- allows proof positive that something bad is going out of that computer," said one cyber-security expert who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the initiative's sensitivity.

Allowing a spy agency to monitor domestic networks is worrisome, said James X. Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "We're concerned that the NSA is claiming such a large role over the security of unclassified systems," he said. "They are a spy agency as well as a communications security agency. They operate in total secrecy. That's not necessary and not the most effective way to protect unclassified systems."

A proposal last year by the White House Homeland Security Council to put the Department of Homeland Security in charge of the initiative was resisted by national security agencies on the grounds that the department, established in 2003, lacked the necessary expertise and authority. The tug-of-war lasted weeks and was resolved only recently, several sources said.

Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.

'Iran producing 300 tons of UF

2008-01-27T11:27:00.000-05:00

Jan 27, 2008 15:14 | Updated Jan 27, 2008 17:40
'Iran producing 300 tons of UF6'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
TEHERAN, Iran
An Iranian official said Sunday that the Islamic republic has increased its production to more than 300 tons of a gas used for uranium enrichment, a semi-official news agency reported.
The announcement comes as the UN Security Council is deciding whether to impose new economic sanctions against Iran for refusing to roll back its nuclear activities.

"The Isfahan uranium conversion facility is active, and it has produced more than 300 tons of UF6," otherwise known as uranium hexaflouride gas, the Fars news agency quoted Javad Vaidi, deputy of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, as saying in meeting to members of the Revolutionary Guards. The Fars news agency is considered close to the elite branch of Iran's military.

The central Iranian cities of Isfahan and Natanz house the heart of the Iran's nuclear program.

In Isfahan, a conversion facility reprocesses raw uranium, known as yellowcake, into uranium hexaflouride gas. The gas is then taken to Natanz and fed into the centrifuges for enrichment.

Centrifuges spin uranium gas into enriched material, which at low levels is used to produce nuclear fuel to generate electricity. But further enrichment makes it suitable for use in building nuclear weapons.
A report by UN nuclear watchdog in November confirmed that Iran had stockpiled nearly 270 metric tons of the precursor gas used in enrichment.

The UN Security Council has been trying to pressure Iran to freeze uranium enrichment. But Iran has repeatedly refused, and officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency have privately said Teheran is expanding the program.

The Security Council is considering a new draft resolution that calls for additional sanctions against Iran, including bans on travel. Two sets of sanctions have already been imposed on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.

The five veto-wielding members of the council - the US, Britain, France, China and Russia - along with Germany, agreed last week on the basic terms of the new resolution. Diplomats have said the full, 15-nation Security Council will likely approve it next month.

Iran insists its enrichment activities are intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that would generate electricity, but the US and others suspect Teheran's real aim is to produce nuclear bombs. A US intelligence report released last month concluded Teheran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in late 2003 and had not resumed it since.

Iranian officials have said they plan to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear energy in the next two decades.

Modeling Urban Panic

2008-01-18T21:13:00.000-05:00

“The goal of this project is to develop a reusable and behaviorally founded computer model of pedestrian movement and crowd behavior amid dense urban environments, to serve as a test-bed for experimentation,” says Torrens. “The idea is to use the model to test hypotheses, real-world plans and strategies that are not very easy, or are impossible to test in practice.”

Such as the following: 1) simulate how a crowd flees from a burning car toward a single evacuation point; 2) test out how a pathogen might be transmitted through a mobile pedestrian over a short period of time; 3) see how the existing urban grid facilitate or does not facilitate mass evacuation prior to a hurricane landfall or in the event of dirty bomb detonation; 4) design a mall which can compel customers to shop to the point of bankruptcy, to walk obliviously for miles and miles and miles, endlessly to the point of physical exhaustion and even death; 5) identify, if possible, the tell-tale signs of a peaceful crowd about to metamorphosize into a hellish mob; 6) determine how various urban typologies, such as plazas, parks, major arterial streets and banlieues, can be reconfigured in situ into a neutralizing force when crowds do become riotous; and 7) conversely, figure out how one could, through spatial manipulation, inflame a crowd, even a very small one, to set in motion a series of events that culminates into a full scale Revolution or just your average everyday Southeast Asian coup d'état -- regime change through landscape architecture.'

Use the link in the title to get some more info. or......

click here: www.geosimulation.org/crowds/

which is the better site

China is allowing its currency to rise more rapidly. Why?

2008-01-18T17:52:00.000-05:00

CHINA'S ECONOMY
Jan 10th 2008

China is allowing its currency to rise more rapidly. Why?

IN 2005 two American senators introduced a bill into Congress that threatened to slap a tariff of 27.5% on all Chinese imports unless the yuan was revalued by the same amount (their estimate of how much the currency was undervalued). That legislation was dropped, but several other China-bashing bills are still working their way through Congress and accusations about "unfair" Chinese competition will surely play a big role in this year's presidential election. Many American politicians and economists talk as if the yuan was still fixed against the dollar. Yet on current trends, by the time the next president enters the White House the yuan could be within spitting distance of the magic figure demanded in 2005.

Since the beginning of October the yuan has climbed at an annual rate of 13% against the dollar--its fastest pace since China stopped pegging to the dollar in July 2005 (see chart). Since 2005 it has appreciated by a total of 14%. The offshore forward market is pricing in another 8% increase over the next 12 months; several economists are betting on a rise of 10% or more.

It may appear as if Beijing has caved in to Washington's demands. But the main reason why China is allowing the yuan to rise faster is because its policymakers believe the benefits to China from a rising currency now outweigh the costs. Beijing's top concern today is inflation, which rose to 6.9% in November. On January 9th the government announced tighter price controls on a range of products. The People's Bank of China (PBOC) increased interest rates six times in 2007, but this is unlikely to squeeze inflation, which has been driven largely by a jump in food prices caused by supply-side shocks. A faster pace of currency appreciation offers a more powerful weapon: it will help to reduce imported inflation, especially of food and raw
materials. By reducing the need to intervene to hold down the currency, it will also curb the build-up of foreign-exchange reserves and hence monetary growth.

Another reason for the shift in policy is that the costs of holding down the yuan are rising. The PBOC has so far succeeded in "sterilising" most foreign-exchange inflows--printing yuan to buy incoming dollars and then selling bonds to banks in order to mop up the resulting excess liquidity. It has even made a profit on this activity, because the return on its dollar reserves exceeded the rate it paid out on sterilisation bonds. Now, however, the PBOC is losing money. Thanks to falling interest rates in America and rising rates in China, Chinese rates are now higher than those in America and the gap is likely to widen this year. Since the shrinking yuan value of China's dollar reserves also has to be reported as a loss, the cost of currency
intervention is higher still.

Higher yields in China than in America are also likely to mean bigger inflows of foreign capital. The PBOC would then have to buy even more foreign exchange to hold down the yuan, increasing the required amount of sterilisation. On January 3rd the one-year dollar LIBOR rate (the cost of funding a carry trade using dollars) fell below the Chinese one-year deposit rate for the first time since China abandoned the dollar peg. Add in the expected appreciation over the next year, and investing in yuan is highly attractive.

China's capital controls give it some protection from speculative inflows, but they are leaky. Businesses can build up positions in yuan by over-invoicing exports and under-invoicing imports. Some economists argue that a big one-off revaluation would help to stem inflows by reducing the expected future appreciation of the yuan. But Chinese policymakers have stressed the need for gradual adjustment. To show that the currency is not just a one-way bet, the PBOC may try to nudge the yuan a bit lower in coming days.

The yuan's rise is unlikely to silence flag-waving American Congressmen or economists. The slide in the dollar since 2005 means the yuan has risen by only 5% in trade-weighted terms, according to the Bank for International Settlements. China's current-account surplus has risen from 4% of GDP in 2004 to 11% last year, so any gauge that defines the equilibrium exchange rate as the rate that would eliminate the surplus would suggest the yuan is now even more undervalued. In 2005 Morris Goldstein and Nicholas Lardy at the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated the yuan was 20-25% undervalued. By late 2007 they thought it was at least 30-40% undervalued despite its gain over the previous two years.

But other economists say it is wrong to define the yuan's correct value by the size of the current-account surplus. In particular, it is unclear how a revaluation would correct China's savings-investment imbalance, which underlies that surplus. A recent report from the Conference Board, an American business-research organisation, argued that: "Although an undervalued currency contributes to China's trade surplus, it is not a primary cause of it and has very little to do with the bilateral United States-China trade deficit."

Most Congressmen believe otherwise. The problem with China's appreciation by stealth is that it gets no credit from its critics for doing so. If China had delivered the past two years' currency appreciation in one go it might now be getting less flak from its detractors in America.

A lackluster report card for Bush's Middle East junket

2008-01-14T17:08:00.000-05:00

A lackluster report card for Bush's Middle East junket
by EDWARD M. GOMEZ
January 14 2008

Apparently, George W. Bush's handlers, desperate to improve his international image in the waning months of his period in the White House, were hoping to win more bang for the American taxpayers' bucks they spent last week sending their man to the Middle East to talk about making peace after many years of making non-stop war. However, in politics, stuff happens. Bush was upstaged in the news by the headline-making drama of the New Hampshire primary, by the growing tide of worry about a recession that has developed on his watch, and even by the antics of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his fashion-model/pop-singer girlfriend.

Unfortunately for Bush's team, despite the considerable expense of his public-relations junket to Israel and several Arab countries, many news media in the region - and even some major news outlets beyond it - did not give the Republican pol's trip high marks.

Bush appears to be hoping against hope that, for the sake of his reputation, the Israelis and Palestinians will make peace before he leaves the White House, thereby allowing the glow of the resolution of their long conflict to rub off on Bush himself. However, in a news-analysis piece on the even of Bush's trip, Britain's Times pointed out: "The Bush administration believes that a Palestinian state can be born by the end of 2008 if the two parties now engage seriously in negotiating the thorny issues of future borders, Jewish settlements, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees." But the "reality on the ground, in places the presidential cortège will not be visiting, is very different. The Palestinian lands, which would form the future state, are divided by Jewish settlements and the Israeli security wall. Their inhabitants are trapped in a no-man's-land that can barely support a poor rural economy, let alone become the foundation for a thriving sovereign state." Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip "is now completely in the hands of the Islamic militant movement Hamas, whose fighters are engaged in daily rocket duels with the Israeli military. It is far more likely that the two sides will go to war in this crowded strip before it becomes part of a stable future Palestine."

» The Herald Sun, apparently somewhat surprised by the intensity of the criticism, pointed out that numerous "Arab commentators poured scorn on...Bush's vision of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal [emerging] within a year." Noting that, in Israel, Bush had urged both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to make "difficult choices," the Australian newspaper reported: "But in Egypt, the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, [the] liberal-opposition newspaper Al-Wafd described Bush as 'the most hateful visitor' and a 'war criminal.'" The Egyptian paper observed: "After all the destruction you have caused and which your country continues to cause, you have wished to end your rule by playing the role of peacemaker....But you are lying as you have lied before to the people of the Middle East and to your own people."

Syria's official Ath-Thawra intoned: "Before and during his visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories,...Bush more than once urged Israel to stop settlement expansion and called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state....These are only beautiful words of peace." Rami Khouri, a Palestinian-Jordanian and U.S. citizen, and journalist and editor associated with Lebanon's Daily Star, "said Washington's refusal to accept the verdict when groups like the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas were elected to power, left Bush open to accusations of hypocrisy." Khouri commented: "If you preach majority rule and the rule of law as a desirable global norm but refuse to respect it when Israeli interests are concerned, you come across as a hypocrite, at best, and a deceitful cheat, at worst...." (Cited by the Herald Sun)

» Saudi Arabia's Arab News, in an editorial headlined "Cynicism with Reason," noted: "We ought to be celebrating...Bush's declaration that a Palestinian state is 'long overdue.'...We should be excited by his call for an end to the Israeli occupation, all the more because 'occupation' is a word so rarely used by the Americans in relation to the Israelis. But there will be no dancing in the streets of Ramallah or Jericho or any other Palestinian town - or any Arab one....It is impossible to feel any excitement about Bush's words - because no Palestinian, no Arab believes he will, or can, deliver....[T]here are good reasons - the most powerful being that we have been here, heard it all, too many times before, and to no effect."

Arabs are cautious or doubtful in response to Bush's latest pronouncements, Arab News added, for "two specific reasons." "The first is Washington's historic alliance with Israel, which despite the ringing words about a Palestinian state, Bush himself fully re-endorsed during his visit [last] week. We can be absolutely certain that Washington is not going to exert the pressure needed to force the Israelis into making the necessary concessions for there to be a fully sovereign Palestinian state. Even if Bush wanted to (which has to be seriously questioned), Congress would not let him; certainly not in the limited time available." Arab News said many Arabs' second concern about Bush "is the man himself. He has proved a disaster of a president - for the U.S., for the Middle East, for the world. Everything he touches turns to dust and ashes." (See also the Hindu)

» In the United Arab Emirates, the Gulf News published an editorial called "Letter to George W. Bush." Citing a litany of Bush's controversial accomplishments and events or people that have indelibly marked his period in office, it stated: "Dear Mr. President: Lest you forget[:] Invasion of Iraq. Thousands of dead. Looting the National Museum. Disbanding the Iraqi army. Donald Rumsfeld. Shock and awe. Jay Garner. Paul Bremer. Inciting sectarianism. Abu Ghraib. Thousands of detainees without charges. Torture. Oil. Ghost WMDs. The Niger connection. Halliburton. Blackwater. Deadly security contractors. Mercenaries. Fallujah. Haditha massacre. Blind support of Israel. Instigating the suffering of Gaza. Ignoring the expansion of illegal colonies. Defying United Nations resolutions. Securing 'a Jewish State.' Allowing Israelis to extend the destruction of Lebanon in the 2006 war. Providing Israel with new bunker-buster bombs to attack Lebanese towns. The War on Terror. 'The Crusade.' Clash of civilizations. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Afghanistan. Bagram massacre. Bombing media offices. Guantánamo Bay. Kangaroo courts. Indefinite detention. Presidential orders to ignore Geneva Conventions. 'Unlawful enemy combatants.' Illegal National Security Agency wiretapping. Fingerprinting visitors. Black prisons. Kidnapping foreign citizens on foreign lands. Khalid Al Masri. Abu Omar. Maher Arar. Central Intelligence Agency. 'Aggressive interrogation techniques.' Destroying the torture tapes....Denial of global warming. Rejecting Kyoto Protocol. Marginalization of the United Nations. John Bolton. Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank. Karl Rove. Alberto Gonzales. Firing attorneys. Nepotism. False democracy promises. Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney and Dick Cheney....The list goes on."

The Gulf News editorial continued: "Mr. President[,]...It has been reported that you are here to 'lecture' us on democracy and human rights. But with a record like yours, you will not be very convincing....Regional peace...will not be achieved by escalating tension and threatening to change regimes. And most importantly, it will not be achieved by supporting Israel, which continues to defy international law, occupy Arab lands, oppress the Palestinians and rebuff peace initiatives....We hope you have enjoyed the trip so far. The scenery is great. The food is exotic. As for the more 'serious' things, it is unlikely you will make any difference."

Posted By: Edward M. Gomez (Email) | January 14 2008 at 07:51 AM
Edward M. Gomez, a former U.S. diplomat and staff reporter at TIME, has lived and worked in the U.S. and overseas, and speaks several languages. He has written for The New York Times, the Japan Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Congress: Reform Those Patents

2007-12-26T07:17:00.000-05:00

Commentary
Congress: Reform Those Patents
Robert Weber 12.26.07, 6:00 AM ET
In 1807, after 15 years of litigation, a court finally protected Eli Whitney against infringers of his cotton gin patent. The experience nearly bankrupted him, though, and was a distraction for this prolific inventor.

Some things never change. Exactly 200 years later, we find ourselves with a patent system that has served us faithfully, but needs to be overhauled to reduce devastating litigation and promote innovation.

Naysayers are materializing as legislation to modernize the patent system wends its way through Congress, again. The House has passed a reform bill, and the Senate now has the opportunity to make history, too. Some are asking why we are "rushing" into these changes. We would respectfully remind critics that carefully considered patent reform has been in the works for years.

Opponents of progress have asked stewards of the reform process to take the equivalent of a doctor's Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." Well, many rightfully believe that the patient is seriously ill and requires intervention. Lightweight reforms--cosmetic surgery--will do the patient absolutely no good.

The last time patent laws were comprehensively updated was more than 50 years ago. In Web time, that's equivalent to the passage of 200 years. Regulating today's intellectual property with those laws is a bit like trying to manage air traffic with systems designed for horse and buggy.

Still, in addition to the flurry of fundamental breakthroughs in the recent past, innovation is now frequently incremental rather than epic. Therefore, many of the damages awards in patent infringement cases are, today, wildly disproportionate. So, why are we awarding patent damages based on the value of the entire car to the inventor of the tire? And why are we making the court system the only venue for challenging a patent's validity? It's expensive, time consuming and acrimonious.

Reform would enable inventors to resolve differences out of court. If cases do make it to the legal system, then awards will be much more reasonable under the new laws.

Unreasonable awards and excessive patent litigation are nothing less than an assault on our economy. According to the National Research Council, patent lawsuits resolved in U.S. District Courts mushroomed from 1,200 in 1988, to nearly 2,400 in 2001. Two professors from the Boston University School of Law, Michael J. Meurer and James Bessen, have found that, in the aggregate, patent litigation costs for complex technologies at public companies began eclipsing patent profits in the late '90s.

According to the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, patents of poor quality cost the economy $4.5 billion annually. Research and development budgets now run the risk of being hijacked by legal expenses. Every disproportionate court award might as well be a tax on businesses and consumers, resulting in more expensive and less innovative products.

Let's face it: Litigation by itself makes for a poor long-term business model, and does nothing to promote real innovation.

Patent speculation is a phenomenon that fuels such litigation. Patent speculators produce no products or services; they mostly just sue others for supposed patent infringement. Intel (nasdaq: INTC - news - people ) has noted that U.S. tech companies have contended with 193 patent infringement lawsuits in the past 21 months, with 70% of them originating from patent speculators.

And there is another imperative: We need to be in synch with the rest of the world. One way to accomplish this is to recognize the first applicant to file for a patent as the prospective owner of the idea. Believe it or not, our current system does not give priority to those who are first to file. Doing so will help us reduce controversy over idea ownership, and will enable us to participate more easily in the international marketplace.

As the largest holder of U.S. patents, we feel it is our responsibility, and the right time, to speak out forcefully in favor of reform. We are trying to do our share by unilaterally publishing a first-ever corporate policy aimed at promoting patent transparency and quality. We also initiated, and with others in the private sector, are working with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to ensure that citizens have a voice in the patent review process.

But these voluntary efforts, along with recent wise Supreme Court decisions, are not enough.

Progress, not perfection, is the goal. It was so from Eli Whitney's time, and is true today. Congress finally has an historic opportunity to address the thorniest of modern challenges, to secure America's continued role as the leading innovator in the global economy.

Robert Weber is senior vice president for Legal and Regulatory Affairs & general counsel of IBM.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

At first glance these comments make a lot of sense! The patent system is in need of reform. But Mr. Weber misses some key points, as would be expected by a person who has made his career as an attorney. He has done a very good job as an advocate for his firm's position. What he misses is how this applies to this legislation affects the larger audience of inventors and therefore the long term good of the economy as a whole.

There are a couple of points to consider as an alternative viewpoint. Eli Whitney patent was number 78. The Patent system was in it's infancy. Whitney's idea was originally not to "sell" the the cotton gin but to use the machines in a new service in the same way a grist mill provided a service. Later in 1818, Whitney, having learned the legalities of the patent process, was able to secure a patent on the milling machine. This idea was not new, and it was not his, but drove through the concept of "interchangable parts" which eventually lead to major changes in the mass production of various goods and evolved into the concepts put forth by the likes of Henry Ford, Edwards Deming and Taiichi Ohno.

"Necessity is the mother of invention". Although IBM is the single "largest holder of US Patents" most innovation happens as a result of necessity. One guy with a hammer thinks "there has to be an easier way". One woman, writing code, thinks the same, One person running a milling machine in a job shop thinks "I can do this better" What if...

The real problem is lies not with the concept of a patent system but the vested interests who want to bend the rules to their own interest. Lawyers who have not "invented" anything but have found ways to make money by making money off of other's ideas. Mr. Weber suggests that Patent speculation is not healthy. He is correct. However, if the new laws only benefit corporate America they will not serve the longer term good of the country.

Unfortunately the cost for a small inventor, wielding a hammer, to learn and understand the patent process is going to cost him well over six figures. Do these inventors exist? Given that 20% of all High School Dropouts fall in the "gifted IQ" range I would say yes. The costs of market entry are prohibitive. Will the proposed legislation stimulate or stifle innovation?

Does innovation happen in Research & Development area of a corporation? Yes, but.... it more than often happens in the field. The caveat being that innovation in certain industries happens in different areas. Innovation in biotechnology happens in a lab, Innovation with software happens in the lab AND in the small bedroom office. Innovation in manufacturing happens on the floor of a small tool and die shop. In most cases the "first to file" is not the single inventor but the corporation with a battery of attorneys. That is why, as Mr Weber suggests, " innovation is now frequently incremental rather than epic"

The Japanese patent office gets over 50,000 hits a day by manufacturer's seeking ways to implement new ideas under the "first to file" concept. There is not "reward" for the small inventor to file and expose his idea to someone who can take it and make it before he or she has learned the way to take their idea to market let alone defend the patent.

We need to consider the effects of patent law changes on each segment of society and not just the attorneys in corporate America who are acting as advocates for their own industry. Perhaps the real focus should be on tort reform and bettering our educational systems

Investing lessons from a CIA Agent

2007-12-08T13:16:00.000-05:00

I think this is a great lesson in alot of areas:

By Mark Skousen
Investors are always warned to avoid the twin relics of Wall Street folly, fear and greed. But during my two years working for the highly secretive Central Intelligence Agency, I learned that there are two worse dangers equally applicable in the financial world: ignorance and arrogance. Let me explain...

I don’t usually tell my subscribers or friends very much about my stint as a junior economic officer at the CIA in the early 1970s, but after reading Tim Weiner’s expose, "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA," I thought it appropriate to reveal some insights I learned there, and how to apply it to one’s finances.

Tim Weiner, a New York Times reporter, tells a depressing story of how the CIA failed repeatedly in its mission to predict international conflicts and attacks on the U.S. For example, to cite two recent examples of bad intelligence, the CIA failed to warn America of the 9/11 terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists; and it gave faulty information on weapons of mass destruction, and thus condemned the U.S. to a misconceived war in Iraq.

My Run-In with Former CIA Director George Tenet

I confronted George Tenet, director of the CIA from 1997 to 2005, on these two blunders at a session I moderated at last year’s New Orleans conference. He could only answer, "Our failures are always publicly trumpeted; but our successes – which were many – are always a secret."

He’s right. When I was at the CIA in the early 1970s, the agency’s mistakes were all too prominent. As a member of the Office of Economic Research (OER), we were in charge of warning the President and Congress of imminent economic crises. But we failed to anticipate the power of OPEC, the 1973-74 energy crisis, and the subsequent gasoline shortages.

A few years later, when Mexico devalued the peso, the CIA economists were silent. They were just as surprised as everyone else. Tim Weiner recounts numerous tales of failed missions by the clandestine service, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

Even when the CIA was right, its successes were suppressed. I co-authored a secret report on the meat shortage in the U.S. as a result of Nixon’s wage-price-controls. (Yes, Virginia, the CIA is into everything.) We predicted that when the price controls were lifted, beef prices would not increase, but would actually fall. But the White House refused to believe our prediction, and buried the report.

The CIA failed repeatedly because of two persistent problems: ignorance and arrogance. More often than not, they just didn’t have the intelligence to know what was really going on in the Middle East, Vietnam or Latin America. And they refused to admit they didn’t know, so they often lied to presidents and Congress.

In sum, billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on the CIA, and thousands of American citizens, as well as freedom fighters in foreign lands, were killed.

Ignorance is Costly

Is there a lesson here for investors?

Indeed, humility and lack of understanding reality are all too often missing in the lives of investors. How often are we shocked by the unexpected, such as this past summer’s collapse in the mortgage and credit markets, and its ramifications? Could we not see the real estate boom was too good to be true and had to come to a bad ending? If we had studied Austrian economics, we would know that inflationary booms are unsustainable and require a bust.

What about China? If we study the history of emerging markets, we know that booms inevitably turn into busts. Should we not be surprised that after the Shanghai stock index rose 400%, it would fall by 40%-50%? The smart investor uses trailing stops to protect his profits.

How many of us take the time to study the history of Wall Street and the inevitable cycles of greed and fear? How many of us learn by sad experience that stories that are too good to be true usually are just that. We eventually get burned by investing in "sure fire" penny stocks and tax shelters.

Pride Proceedeth the Fall
2007-12-08 09:00:00
Investing lessons from a CIA Agent
There is also the problem of pride. Investors and money managers who have doubled or tripled their portfolio that become "know-it-alls," thinking that beating the market is easy.

A few years ago, a hedge fund manager I know had several years of superior profits, and become highly conceited. He wrote a book about his exploits, full of colored photographs of his expensive lifestyle. But as the old saying goes, pride proceedeth the fall. A few years later, he made a series of blunders in the marketplace, and his accounts blew up. He was forced to declare bankruptcy.

Don’t let it happen to you. "The used key is always bright," says Ben Franklin. Keep informed and know the signs of the times. Stay educated. Attend conferences and keep up on the financial news. And always remain humble, knowing that you never know what’s around the corner.

In Beijing, workers wear masks just to breath. Most have to filter drinking water. But all this is about to change fast as the Chinese government launches one of the biggest initiatives in history to clean up this mess. Our inside-China contacts show us which companies are about to get billion dollar contracts, for gains of 1,046% or more in the coming months... All while U.S. investors are paralyzed by subprime shock waves.

Courtesy: www.investmentu.com

Bush Is Stuck on Iran

2007-11-08T12:59:00.000-05:00

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Bush Is Stuck on Iran
In an interview with German TV reporters yesterday, President Bush went on again about War III.

Not in reference to Pakistan, mind you - though that's where much of the world's focus has turned this week. Nor does he seem particularly worried about failure in Iraq or Afghanistan, the spread of Islamic extremism, terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons - he didn't mention any of them when asked about his goals for the last year of his presidency.

Rather, Bush remains fixated on Iran. He repeated that he was "absolutely serious" when he warned last month that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to the ultimate conflagration. And he proclaimed yesterday: "[T]his is a country that has defied the IAEA -- in other words, didn't disclose all their program -- have said they want to destroy Israel. If you want to see World War III, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon. And so I said, now is the time to move."

It was a stupid, hyperbolic and weak statement. And Bush needs to stop repeating it.

Iran is still at least years away from having nuclear weapons. And with sanctions and international isolation and the preemptive tendencies of the U.S. and Israel, the likelihood of Iran successfully attaining nuclear capability is far less than 50-50.

It's also somewhat unlikely that Iran would move to attack Israel. As Fareed Zakaria observed recently in Newsweek: "Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century.... Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

World War III, I've written before, would more likely ignite because of a normal set of events that careens out of control. Events Iraq or the Persian Gulf, for example, could lead to miscues and alerts and mobilizations and people shooting at each other across borders.

Of all the potential crises America and the world faces, Iran seems one of the easiest to put into a harmless box.

At the same time, given the extremism of the Tehran regime, singling out Iran as the one country likely to produce World War III is unnecessarily inflammatory. And so, we can fan the flames, thereby making conflict more likely. Or we can dispassionately and doggedly pursue positive outcomes, secure in the confidence that we are able to prioritize the true threats.

Dem Letter To White House

2007-11-08T12:38:00.000-05:00

Thirty senators sent a letter to the White House on Thursday warning President Bush not to take offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Noticeably absent from the list of signatories is presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.

According to its authors, the letter was designed to clarify the ambiguity of the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama has been critical of that amendment as well as the Bush administration's aggressive rhetoric towards Tehran. Yet the senator from Illinois turned down a requestion to sign on to the White House letter.

"I was surprised and disappointed," John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World and one of the catalysts behind the letter, told the Huffington Post. "I contacted virtually every office and to me it was a no-brainer that Obama and [Sen.] Biden [whose name was also not on the list] would both sign on. Neither did."

The letter, which was spearheaded by Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA, was signed by presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman provision, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT, who opposed it. The text reads:

"We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy."

Sources knowledgeable with the crafting of the letter said there were two general arguments offered by those who did not sign on in support: that Congress already has the power to declare war, and that the letter text was too vague about defensive and/or covert action against Iran. Notably, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also declined to attach his name.

Staff for Obama and Biden did not return requests for comment by the time of publication. A list of the signatories is below.

Dear President Bush:
We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran. This includes the Senate vote on September 26, 2007 on an amendment to the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment, expressing the sense of the Senate on Iran, and the recent designation of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, should in no way be interpreted as a predicate for the use of military force in Iran.

We stand ready to work with your administration to address the challenges presented by Iran in a manner that safeguards our security interests and promotes a regional diplomatic solution, but we wish to emphasize that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress.

Sincerely,

1. Webb
2. Akaka
3. Baucus
4. Boxer
5. Brown
6. Byrd
7. Cantwell
8. Carper
9. Casey
10. Clinton
11. Dodd
12. Dorgan
13. Durbin
14. Feinstein
15. Harkin
16. Johnson
17. Kerry
18. Klobuchar
19. Kohl
20. Leahy
21. McCaskill
22. Mikulski
23. Murray
24. Reed
25. Rockefeller
26. Sanders
27. Stabenow
28. Tester
29. Whitehouse
30. Wyde

Scapegoating US Diplomats

2007-11-08T11:47:00.001-05:00

Scapegoating US Diplomats
For Failures In Iraq

By William Fisher

08 November, 2007
Countercurrents.org

Facing growing scrutiny of the State Department's shortage of experienced diplomats in Iraq - and the Department's announced intention to force Foreign Service Officers to serve in Baghdad against their will -- the leader of America's diplomatic service is charging that critics, "including people who urged the 2003 invasion," are seeking to blame the State Department for their own failures.

"No country's diplomatic corps has people with many of the skills now needed in Iraq: oil and gas engineers, electrical grid managers, urban planners, city managers and transportation planners. If any US defense planner in 2003 thought that the State Department and other civilian federal agencies had such people on staff in large numbers (Arabic-speaking or not) ready to rebuild Iraq, they were wrong," says John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA).

AFSA represents America's 11,500 professional diplomats. Of these, 6,500 are Foreign Service Officers while 5,000 are Foreign Service specialists, including Diplomatic Security agents. There are another 1,500 or so Foreign Service members at the US Agency for international Development (USAID), the Commerce Department's Foreign Commercial Service, the Agriculture Department's Foreign Agricultural Service and the International Broadcasting Bureau, an independent agency closely allied with State.

Naland points out that between the US invasion in 2003 through 2007, all of the more than 2,000 career Foreign Service members who served at the US mission in Baghdad and the expanding Provincial Reconstruction Teams around the country "did so as a volunteer."

Naland termed it "unfortunate" that late last month the Director General of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Harry K. Thomas, Jr., declared that "the well of volunteers had finally run dry." Thomas announced that, if volunteers could not be found for 48 remaining positions by mid-November, diplomats -- under threat of dismissal - would be ordered to serve at the embassy in Baghdad and in so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams in outlying provinces. If carried out, it would be the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam.

AFSA contends that "directed assignments of Foreign Service members into a war zone would be detrimental to the individual, to the post, and to the Foreign Service as a whole. AFSA urged the State Department to find ways to increase the pool of qualified voluntary bidders."

Under the new order, 200-300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the Baghdad embassy and in the provinces. Those notified that they have been selected for a one-year posting will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go. Only those with compelling reasons, such as a medical condition or extreme personal hardship, will be exempt from disciplinary action.

Diplomats are also angered that Thomas's announcement was made to the news media before it was conveyed to those likely to be deployed under the new policy.

At a 'town hall' meeting in Washington last week, some 300 US diplomats told Thomas what they thought of State's decision to force Foreign Service Officers to take jobs in Iraq.

One attendee, Jack Crotty, a senior Foreign Service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces, told the Associated Press that the new policy was tantamount to a "potential death sentence." Others expressed serious concern about the ethics of sending diplomats against their will to serve in a war zone while a review of the department's use of private security contractors to protect its staff is under way. Most Embassy staff works in the so-called 'Green Zone' - itself far from immune from incoming mortar and other types of attacks. But members of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) are deployed through the country, including in some of most dangerous provinces. Only Diplomatic Security agents are permitted to be armed.

The Associated Press quoted Crotty as telling Ambassador Thomas, "It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment. I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded? You know that at any other (country) in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point." His comments drew enthusiastic applause from his colleagues.

AFSA President Naland said that a recent survey found that only 12 percent of the union's membership believed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was "fighting for them."

He said that some critics of US failures in Iraq are seeking to shift blame onto the Foreign Service for their own lack of pre-invasion planning, while others are as basing their comments on "wildly inflated estimations of the capacities of civilian agencies to operate in combat zones such as Iraq."

In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department assembled a series of blue-ribbon task forces to help prepare the Administration for the political, economic, social, cultural and religious challenges that would likely face the 'Coalition of the Willing' once the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled. The group, which included Iraqi exiles and some of the world's most distinguished Middle East scholars, made a series of recommendations. But the Defense Department, then under the leadership of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, ignored their advice.

In a website statement, Naland attempted to put the Foreign Service's involvement in Iraq into perspective. He said, "Comparisons between the military and the State Department are often made with complete disregard for the facts relating to scale: budgets, personnel and capacity for war-zone service."

Naland pointed out that "the US active-duty military is 119 times larger than the Foreign Service. The total uniformed military (active and reserve) is 217 times larger. A typical U.S. Army division is larger than the entire Foreign Service. The military has more uniformed personnel in Mississippi than the State Department has diplomats worldwide. The military has more full colonels/Navy captains than the State Department has diplomats. The military has more band members than the State Department has diplomats. The Defense Department has almost as many lawyers as the State Department has diplomats."

He said that, in contrast to the military, "the vast majority of Foreign Service members are forward-deployed. Today, in a time of armed conflict, 21 percent of the active-duty military (290,000 out of 1,373,000) is stationed abroad (ashore or afloat). That compares to 68 percent of the Foreign Service currently stationed abroad at 167 U.S. embassies and 100 consulates and other missions."

Naland noted that more than 20 percent of the Foreign Service has served, or is serving, in Iraq since 2003. In the PRTs, which comprise up to 600 members, the Foreign Service component is 10 to 15 percent. There are currently approximately 200 Foreign Service positions at Embassy Baghdad and another 70 or so at the 25 Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

He said, "Foreign Service members receive very little preparation before deploying to Iraq -- less than two-weeks of special training to serve in a combat zone. Contrast that to their predecessors 40 years ago who received four to six months of training before deploying to South Vietnam...."

Naland added that surveys have shown that most Foreign Service volunteers in Iraq have been motivated not by extra pay but by "patriotism and a professional desire to try to advance the Administration's top foreign policy objective."

One of the most serious challenges facing the State Department - and every other government agency involved in Iraq and in the Middle East generally - is the acute shortage of Arabic speakers. This deficit is in danger of crippling US efforts to counter terrorist threats, communicate with prisoners, and build bridges to the Muslim world.

At the State Department, only 10 of 34,000 employees were rated fully fluent in Arabic as of 2006.

The number of Arabic language students in US universities has skyrocketed since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the course still ranks behind classical Greek, Latin and even American Sign Language in popularity.

The shortage has spurred an aggressive campaign of recruiting -- including generous sign-on bonuses -- by all U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Department of Homeland Security.

One result of the shortage, according to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank, is that analysts at the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency are "awash in untranslated gleanings of intelligence" in Arabic. Heritage also said there are not enough interpreters to handle detainees in Iraq.

The shortage is also having an effect on US efforts in public diplomacy. Adam Clayton Powell III, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, says, "There are only a half dozen or so US spokesmen who have a sufficient grasp of the Arabic language to appear on radio or television in that part of the world. That means the US is not even part of the dialogue there."

While the language situation appears to be improving, it can only improve slowly. One reason is that Arabic is viewed by many as one of the most difficult languages in the world.

The State Department rates Arabic, along with Chinese and Korean, as a "superhard" language.

But aside from language difficulties, the other key facor relates to policy. As Juan Cole -- professor of history at the University of Michigan and a fluent Arabic speaker-- put it: "Not everyone studying Arabic is thrilled with US policies in the Middle East."

Defense comes to forefront at China's Communist Party Congres

2007-11-06T12:12:00.000-05:00

Defense comes to forefront at China's Communist Party Congress
IDG News Service 11/1/07

Steven Schwankert, IDG News Service, Beijing Bureau
For China technology watchers seeking a road map through the Olympics and into the next decade, the 17th Communist Party Congress in October was a disappointment. China's current president, Hu Jintao, has positioned himself as more of a grassroots, folksy leader than his technocratic predecessor, Jiang Zemin, or China's great reformer, Deng Xiaoping. Hu became president following the end of Jiang's term in 2002.

On the technology stage, Jiang is a tough act to follow. During his 10 years as China's president, Jiang oversaw perhaps the greatest telecommunications infrastructure build-out in history, where China went from having an insufficient number of fixed line telephones to the world's largest mobile market in a decade.

However, Hu was specific in his references to one area of IT guaranteed to raise eyebrows outside the country: defense. "We must build strong armed forces through science and technology. To attain the strategic objective of building computerized armed forces and winning IT-based warfare, we will accelerate composite development of mechanization and computerization, carry out military training under IT-based conditions, modernize every aspect of logistics, intensify our efforts to train a new type of high-caliber military personnel in large numbers and change the mode of generating combat capabilities."

For Germany and other nations that feel they have already been targeted by Chinese cyberattacks, Hu's words are likely to make defense officials in Europe, North America and Japan even more nervous.

"Both military and civilian sectors in China are actively exploring the information warfare concept, which could be gradually developed into a corps of 'network warriors' able to defend China's telecommunications, command, and information networks, while uncovering vulnerabilities in foreign networks," according to Sinodefence.com, an independent China military-monitoring Web site based in the U.K.

Add to this the report that every one of China's local police stations has special officers patrolling the Internet, and suddenly the happy face that Beijing is painting on itself for the 2008 Olympic Games seems more than a bit smeared.

The Chinese leader also devoted a section of his keynote speech to innovation. "We will speed up forming a national innovation system and support basic research, research in frontier technology and technological research for public welfare."

He also said China will "improve the legal guarantee, policy system, incentive mechanism and market conditions to encourage technological innovation and the application of scientific and technological achievements in production," which should be music to the years of intellectual-property rights activists.

Steven Schwankert is Asia desk editor for the IDG News Service.

Bush's Turkey shoot

2007-11-06T12:07:00.000-05:00

It's always interesting to come up with a bunch of 'what if' scenario's:

THE ROVING EYE
Bush's Turkey shoot
By Pepe Escobar

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a fine politician, knew even before he set foot in Washington on Monday that President George W Bush could not possibly have anything tangible to offer him on the explosive Turkey vs Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) dossier, apart from Pentagon aerial intelligence passed on to Turkish generals.

Erdogan, although describing himself as "happy" with his talks with Bush, may have left with nothing substantial. But at least he got a sound bite from Bush, who upgraded the PKK to the status of an enemy of America. Bush told Erdogan, "The PKK is a terrorist organization. They're an enemy of Turkey, they're an enemy of Iraq and they're an enemy of the United States."

Pity the US president could not possibly follow his own logic and add that the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK - the PKK's Iran arm - is an enemy of Iran, an enemy of Iraq but a friend of the United States - which is arming and financing its fighters.

Last week, talking to his Justice and Development Party members of the Turkish Parliament, Erdogan stressed that he needed Bush to "clearly define [the US] road map" concerning the PKK. That would mean, from a Turkish point of view, direct US intervention against both the PKK and its protector, Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani. Bush promised nothing of the kind.

Erdogan has accused Barzani of protecting "terrorists". Barzani has replied he would not hand over any of his Kurdish cousins accused of staging raids into Turkey from northern Iraq. If Bush did nothing about it, Erdogan said, "we will do our own job", which is what Turkish generals are really itching for: a search-and-destroy-the-PKK invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. In other words: a new Iraq war. Even after the "Mr Erdogan goes to Washington" mini-movie, the chances of Turkey "doing its own job" remain high.

Blame it on Iran
Bush could not offer anything substantial because he would have had to admit his administration's impotence at securing any of its neo-imperial possessions' borders; this is what led the PKK to use Iraqi Kurdistan in the first place to coordinate its attacks in Turkey.

Iran also was not expecting that Bush would deliver anything to Erdogan. But then there are always the "unknown unknowns" in the bigger picture. Nobody knows whether Bush and Erdogan have discussed the fine print in a World War III (according to Bush) or World War IV (according to deranged neo-cons) scenario, which is being sold by the White House as caused by Tehran.

Way beyond Turkey's troubles with the PKK, it all comes back to the stark fact that Turkey simply cannot accept a virtually independent Iraqi Kurdistan in its southeast border - exactly the outcome sought by the US-Israeli axis.

Bush and his inner circle have bought time to calculate the odds on whom to double-cross. Will it be North Atlantic Treaty Orgaization ally Turkey, with its handy Incirlik base, anti-US public opinion and no oil; or pro-US Iraqi Kurds, with lots of oil and their Israeli-trained peshmerga (armed forces)? Tough call. A poker player familiar with Bush administration methods would bet on a double double-cross, complete with a "blame it on Iran" sequel and a "bomb Iran" grand finale.

Ankara's logic remain flawless, at least from a "war on terror" angle. If Washington invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq to fight "terrorists", Ankara has the same rights to invade its terrorist-harboring neighbor, which just happens to be an American neo-colony. The irony is obviously lost on the Bush administration.

The Turkish leader's visit to Washington was upstaged by a new coup perpetrated by that irrepressible US ally running a failed state, General President Musharraf of Pakistan. But at least the popularly elected Erdogan is now free to impose economic sanctions on Iraqi Kurdistan. Flights from Istanbul to Irbil have already been cancelled. Electricity and food will become scarce. Just the mere threat of sanctions led the PKK to look for a settlement. Last Friday a PKK leader, Abdul Rahman al-Chadirchi, had already started asking Turkey for a peace plan.

Pick your terrorist
At a meeting in Istanbul this past weekend of foreign ministers of all Iraq's neighbors, plus the permanent members of the UN Security Council and selected G8 members, it emerged that a solution for the unholy mess was coming from Iran. Embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had met with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Baghdad last Wednesday, and "urged Iran to help defuse the border crisis". Tehran duly provided Baghdad with intelligence on the PKK, according to Iranian sources. But Baghdad did nothing - because the Bush administration blocked its every move.

Why? Simple. Tehran intelligence revealed that the PKK - anticipating a Turkish military attack - was now trading Iraqi Kurdistan for northwest Iran. That's what Osman Ocalan, brother of jailed-for-life PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, and a founding member of the PKK, told The Independent's Patrick Cockburn in Irbil.

As Asia Times Online has reported, the CIA has armed and financed the Iranian arm of the PKK, the PJAK, in its attacks against the Iranian government. Not only does Tehran share the same plight with Ankara, it would also expect Baghdad's cooperation on the issue. No wonder the Bush administration - for which the PKK are "terrorists" and PJAK are not - had to squash the initiative.

But with 15 million Kurds in eastern Turkey, 5 million in Iraqi Kurdistan, 4 million in northwest Iran and 1 million in Syria, "the partition of Kurdistan works in our interests", Ocalan said, referring to PKK's extreme mobility. The Bush administration for its part is not exactly dispirited by the PKK's ability to "destabilize" Iran or Syria.

Erdogan's priorities, on the other hand, as revealed once again this Monday in an interview with Claudio Gallo from Italian daily La Stampa, are admission to the European Union, Turkey's territorial integrity ("if only Baghdad had the will do dismantle the terrorist bases in the north") and the Turkish public's feelings about it. So between Bush and a hard place, he'd rather choose the latter, in the form of a strategic alliance with both Iran and Syria to combat what Ankara sees as dangerous Kurdish separatism. Turkey and Iran - commercially and now politically - are getting closer and closer.

Washington is more the loser because virtually no one in Turkey is shedding tears for what happens to their 57-year-old alliance. According to the June 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project, no less than 83% of Turkey's public opinion had an "unfavorable view" of the US, ahead of Egypt and Jordan (both at 78%) and Pakistan (68%). All of these governments - but not their populations - are US allies. It's fair to assume these numbers are rising.

Russia for its part cannot but applaud the newfound Turkish-Persian entente. Non-stop Bush administration heavy handedness is actually fast erasing historical grievances and paving the way towards a new Eurasian configuration, with Turkey-Iran getting closer to Russia-China.

Dance, Pandora, dance
Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq opened a Pandora's box that only now starts to be seen for its true incendiary potential. Turkey threatening to strike Iraq to protect its national security is a carbon copy of Bush invading Iraq in 2003. Moreover, "Iraq" is actually no more; it's been smashed into three virtually independent statelets - exactly what Israel wanted in the first place.

Israel is so keen on an independent Iraqi Kurdistan because this is the way towards a new Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline (the old one was shut down in 1948) - which will pass though three American bases and cross US-friendly Jordan. A complicating factor is that at the same time Tel Aviv avidly coddles racist, Kurd-hating Turkish generals.

Turkey badly needs oil, as much as Israel. Turkey most of all cannot stand an independent Iraqi Kurdistan because it is focused on Mosul and Kirkuk's oil wealth. For any Turk with an Ottoman Empire memory, Mosul's oil fields, only 120km from the border, should belong to Turkey; after all they were stolen by the British Empire as it drew the artificial borders of Iraq in the early 1920s.

Both the treaties of Sevres (1920) and Lausanne (1923) did everything to exclude Mosul and Kirkuk - both with a Turkman majority - from Turkey, so the new republic would be deprived of oil. It's not hard to imagine Turkish generals dreaming of a modern Turkey swimming in oil wealth as a certified regional superpower, spreading its wings over the Middle East, the Balkans, the Caucasus and as far as Central Asia. The equation is inescapable: if Washington could invade Iraq to grab its oil, why not neighbor Turkey, who owned the oil in the first place?

Bye bye Washington
The astute Erdogan knew even before setting foot in Washington that the solution to the Turkey-PKK crisis lay in a frank Washington-Tehran dialogue.

But for that to happen, he knew Bush and the neo-cons would have to drop their faithful ally the KRG and their useful destabilizing force, the PKK/PJAK. And they would also have to abandon the pretence that Iraq is "stabilized" while at the same time threatening to attack Iran, which is a regional power not interested in any destabilization.

Unlike scurrilous President General Musharraf in failed state Pakistan, Erdogan is an elected leader whose public opinion will seriously fault him for not caring about the national interest. So for the moment he is "happy" with Bush's sound bite. He'll wait - for just a little while. If nothing moves, Turkey will strike. Hard. And Washington won't even get a phone call.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

Al-Qaeda wants a part of Afghan talks

2007-10-01T21:45:00.000-05:00

Asia Times
South Asia
Oct 2, 2007
Al-Qaeda wants a part of Afghan talks
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - While the Taliban and the Afghan administration of President Hamid Karzai play political football with the idea of peace talks, the stumbling block remains al-Qaeda, which is firmly opposed to any dialogue unless it can gain something for itself.

Over the past few weeks, the Taliban have responded positively to Karzai's offer of talks, but just when it appeared there might be progress, there's a setback.

Speaking on his return from the United States on Saturday, Karzai said that he was ready to meet Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of another insurgency group, Hezb-e-Islami, for peace talks aimed at sharing power.

But on Sunday, Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a Taliban spokesman, was quoted by Reuters as saying that peace talks with Kabul would not take place as long as the more than 50,000 foreign troops remained in the country. "The Karzai government is a dummy government. It has no authority so why should we waste our time and effort?" Yousuf was quoted as saying. Previously, the Taliban have said that they would talk without preconditions, and they could well revert to this position.

Coincidentally or not, Karzai made his offer hours after one of the biggest bomb attacks in six years killed 30 people in Kabul.

Karzai said that President George W Bush and Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, had both supported the idea of peace talks when he met them in the US. Karzai said he would allocate some government posts to the Taliban and that both Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar could stand in elections scheduled for 2009, if they wanted power.

Although Karzai has offered talks before, this was the first time since the Taliban's ouster in 2001 that the Washington-anointed leader had gone as far as to effectively legitimize the insurgency.

Recently, several top Taliban commanders met again in the Pakistani city of Quetta to hold talks with the Afghan government through Afghan tribal elders acting as go-betweens.

These talks are claimed by the Karzai government as proof of debate among Taliban commanders for peace. However, what is overlooked is the ideological strength of al-Qaeda, which has once again wrested control of the hearts and minds of the Taliban, at least in southeastern Afghanistan. And until al-Qaeda's leaders are drawn into the talks, any other dialogue is bound to fail.

Mushahid Hussain Syed, chairman of the foreign relations committee of the Pakistani Senate and also the powerful secretary general of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League, told Asia Times Online: "Only a year ago when I made the proposal that if Mullah Omar is too hardline to talk too, and the Afghan government should start negotiations with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the Afghan government was so upset that it officially protested to Pakistan. But I am happy that now Mr Karzai himself has endorsed the same proposal."

There is a delayed realization in the Western camp that the Taliban are a reflection of Afghanistan's majority Pashtun population and that their brand of Islam in fact blends strongly with conservative Pashtun traditions. Even after the Taliban defeat in 2001 by the US and its allies, that same brand of Islam is reflected in Afghan court decisions and in many other matters dealt with by the present administration.

The upshot is acceptance that the Taliban should be accommodated politically as well, yet the Western coalition still does not have the stomach to talk with al-Qaeda, which is exerting its influence from the Pakistani tribal areas of North Waziristan and South Waziristan.

People forget that the reason Afghanistan was invaded in the first place was because of the sanctuary that the Taliban offered al-Qaeda. The majority of Afghanistan's tribal and clerical councils recommended to expel Osama bin Laden after September 11, 2001, but al-Qaeda's influence prevailed.

The US and Pakistan, as partners in the "war on terror", made numerous efforts to split the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and at times they succeeded. Notably, there was major disagreement on strategies between the Taliban and al-Qaeda in 2006, which led to many al-Qaeda leaders leaving the Waziristans and Afghanistan. And this year, a Pakistani-sponsored massacre was carried out in South Waziristan against Uzbek militants by Pakistani Taliban commander Haji Nazeer. Prominent al-Qaeda commanders were expelled from the area, yet after a few months al-Qaeda had regained its influence and all Pakistan Taliban groups and al-Qaeda members are fighting side-by-side against the Pakistani armed forces.

If the al-Qaeda factor is to be neutralized, the group needs to be engaged, just as attempts are being made to embrace the Taliban. When Prince Turki al-Faisal (now ambassador to the United States) was the Saudi intelligence chief, the kingdom kept its channels of dialogue with al-Qaeda open, even after September 11, by using the Taliban leadership.

And recently, Saudi Arabia made a fresh approach at dialogue with al-Qaeda by sending an envoy to speak with it in North Waziristan. (See Military brains plot Pakistan's downfall Asia Times Online, September 26, 2007.)

These talks did not make too much progress, but al-Qaeda is certainly looking for some kind of "amnesty" for itself. Until this happens, the Taliban's commanders in southwestern Afghanistan might win some breathing space, but there can be no guarantee of any lasting political settlement in the region.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

Receding permafrost is a bone-hunters' bounty

2007-09-28T00:45:00.000-05:00

Regardless of your point of view on who is right or wrong with regard to climate change/global warming I don't think that there can be any doubt THAT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. It's seems that whatever is going on capitolism is thriving...

and if you would prefer not to read the article the video is here:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/thaw-reveals-mammoth-bones/1623417190

Receding permafrost is a bone-hunters' bounty
By Dmitry Solovyov

CHERSKY, Russia (Reuters) - One day, climate change could cost the earth. For now, it is a nice little earner for Russian hunter Alexander Vatagin
In Siberia's northernmost reaches, high up in the Arctic Circle, the changing temperature is thawing out the permafrost to reveal the bones of prehistoric animals like mammoths, woolly rhinos and lions that have been buried for thousands of years.

Private collectors and scientific institutes will pay huge sums for the right specimen, and bone-prospectors like Vatagin have turned this region, eight time zones from Moscow, into a paleontological Klondyke.

"Last year someone was paid 800,000 roubles (15,500 pounds) for a mammoth head with two tusks in great condition," said Vatagin.

A brawny 45-year-old, he has a network of helpers: the fishermen and reindeer-herders of the tiny Yukagir ethnic group, whose numbers have dwindled to about 800 people.

"I must have earned the respect of the Yukagir," he said. "Their shamans convened a council and decided to name me a Yukagir," he added. He is now Yukagir No. 456.

These tribesmen are his 'finders', fanning out across the vast emptiness of the tundra seeking valuable artifacts.

At regular intervals, Vatagin flies by helicopter to the main Yukagir settlement, Andryushkino, some 200 km (125 miles) west of the local centre of Chersky, to view the merchandise.

Prehistoric bones are not very hard to find. The permafrost is thawing and breaking up so rapidly that in certain places in the tundra, every few meters (yards) bones poke out through the soil. Some just lie on the surface.

Vatagin pays between 200 and 4,000 roubles per kg of mammoth bones. But it takes a keen eye and local knowledge to find the really valuable stuff.

Tusks, sometimes curled round almost into a circle and reaching up to 5 meters in length, are the most prized finds. A pair of good tusks is a rarity; two tusks and a well-preserved skull can be worth a fortune.

"If he is lucky, a local can earn 200,000 roubles in just one day," said Vatagin, who wears a massive silver ring with a mammoth's head engraved into it. "To earn this money, he would have otherwise have to toil for a year."

But for Vatagin it is not just about money. He himself dives into the ice-cold local rivers to look for relics. The cash he pays the Yukagir tribesmen gives them a living.

MAMMOTH RING

Many of the bones retrieved by Vatagin and his adopted tribe end up at the Ice Age Museum in Moscow. The museum makes no secret that scientific discovery goes hand-in-glove with business interests.

Museum official Alexander Svalov has on one of his fingers a ring identical to the one won worn by Vatagin in distant Chersky.

The ring is the symbol of the National Alliance, a close-knit business run by entrepreneur Fyodor Shidlovsky. The company runs the museum, and holds government licenses allowing it to excavate and export prehistoric relics.

Svalov, who is the chief executive of National Alliance, says a well-preserved tusk can sell to private collectors for up to $20,000, while a reconstructed mammoth skeleton can fetch between $150,000 and $250,000.

The bones make their way into museums in places like the United States and South Korea. Now promising new markets are opening up in emerging economies like China too.

"Developing nations are now displaying huge interest in mammoths," says Svalov. "Their economies are growing, they have cash and are starting to develop their museums."

GENTLER

Back in Chersky, Sergei Davydov, a 52-year-old scientist, does not sell the bones he collects. He keeps them to study the effects of climate change, but also because they fascinate him.

"This tooth has an unusual bump here. The mammoth suffered from a terrible toothache. We can only imagine how he must have roared," said Davydov, tenderly rubbing a black tooth the size of a large shoe.

He displays his other finds: a mammoth's giant thigh bones, the horns of a woolly rhino, the jaws of an ancient horse and a cave lion's skull. Bison skulls crowned with sharp horns decorate the interior of his cozy wooden house.

Davydov acknowledges that rising temperatures in Siberia have been a boon for bone collectors. "As the permafrost thaws, we obtain yet more objects for study," he said.

But then he reflects: "From the point of view of humanity, it would have been better if this had never happened," he said.

(c) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Supreme Court To Determine If Patent Holders Can Shake Down Entire Supply Chain

2007-09-28T00:37:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court To Determine If Patent Holders Can Shake Down Entire Supply Chain
from the more-judicial-patent-reform dept
While Congress continues to fight over patent reform (often missing the bigger issues for those that the lobbyists are most interested in), it's been the Supreme Court that's been doing its best to bring some sanity back to the patent system. After ignoring patent law as being a boring "commercial" dispute for years, the Supreme Court finally realized a few years ago that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (that handles patent cases) had basically redefined patent law over the last few years, creating much of the mess we're in today. Suddenly, the Court started taking a bunch of patent cases -- and almost every time it slapped down CAFC and brought some common sense back to the patent system. Of course, there's still a lot more to do on that front, and apparently the Supreme Court agrees. It's now taken yet another patent case that could have major ramifications.

This case, officially between LG and Quanta, really concerns the question of how many times patent holders can get a cut of any component found violating a patent. Currently, patent holders will often sue up and down the food chain. So, if you happen to have a patent on a component within a motor that is used in automobile wipers, you could sue the motor maker, the wiper maker and the auto manufacturer -- and get all three to pay, even though the same product is used throughout the supply chain. This case will look at whether or not it makes sense to allow for that type of double, triple or quadruple dipping. Patently O has a good summary of the case, pointing out that it's effectively asking if the concept of the "first sale doctrine," which applies to copyrights, also applies to patents. If the Supreme Court follows its recent trend in overturning CAFC, this could have a big impact on a lot of patent cases. For example, it would entirely derail NTP's latest patent suits. In that case, NTP forced RIM into licensing its (questionable and likely to be invalidated) patents, and is now suing all the service providers who offer RIM's Blackberry -- effectively double dipping. Once again, it's nice to see both the sudden interest in patent law -- and what often appears to be very clear thinking on the part of the Supreme Court on the issue.

Soldier of the Future Gets His Gear On

2007-09-28T00:27:00.000-05:00

Soldier of the Future Gets His Gear On
By Noah Shachtman
September 26, 2007 | 2:01:00 AM

TARMIYAH, Iraq -- They were supposed to be wearing the high-tech soldier suits of the future. But when the grunts of the 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment first started running around with a pile of gadgets on their backs and their helmets, they absolutely hated the gear.
Oh, maybe the Land Warrior gizmo suite -- complete with digital maps, wearable computers and new radios -- might do the bosses some good, the troops told me. And yeah, the equipment was about as close as troops today were going to get to the kind of tricked-out, sci-fi ensemble you might see worn by Halo's Master Chief. But at 16 pounds, on top of an already crushing 60-plus-pound load for grunts, the gear just wasn't worth the weight. The Army brass wasn't exactly thrilled with Land Warrior, either -- it yanked every last dime to fund the get-ups. The half-billion-dollar, 15-year project looked dead.
Cash was on hand to send the 4/9 into battle with Land Warrior, though. And their commanding officer, Lt. Col. Bill Prior, was a big fan. So, this spring, Land Warrior went off to Iraq.
I've just spent a week with Prior and the 4/9 (known as the "Manchus" since their assaults on China in 1901). And much to my surprise, a bunch of the soldiers in the unit are warming up to Land Warrior, especially now that the gizmo ensemble has been pared down and made more tactically relevant. So now the question is: can this once-doomed soldier-of-the-future ensemble spring back to life?
Over the last decade, the military has connected nearly all its command posts and all its vehicles into a kind of internet for battle. That allowed them to, at the very least, see each other's locations and better coordinate attacks.
Individual soldiers, however, still remain largely off the grid -- only now, more than four years into the Iraq war, are many troop teams getting radios of their own. That's a problem because counterinsurgency fights, like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, are almost wholly dependent on small groups of soldiers like these. Land Warrior was supposed to be the way to plug them in.
Captain Jack Moore, the commander of the 4/9's "Blowtorch" company, peers into his Land Warrior monocle. Inside is a digital map of Tarmiyah, a filthy little town about 25 kilometers north of Baghdad that's become a haven for Islamists. Blue icons show two of his platoons sweeping through the western half of the town. Two other icons represent Blowtorch soldiers who have teamed up with special forces and Iraqi Army units to raid local mosques with insurgent ties.
A red dot suddenly pops up on Moore's monocle screen: 3rd platoon has found a pair of improvised bombs -- black boxes, filled with homemade explosives. Other troops will circumvent the scene.
As the other platoons move south to north, green lights blink on Moore's map. Each of these "digital chem lights" represents a house checked and cleared. It keeps different groups of soldiers from kicking down the same set of doors twice.
A year ago, these chem lights weren't even part of the Land Warrior code. But after a suggestion from a Manchu soldier, the digital markers were added -- and quickly became the system's most popular feature. During air assaults on Baquba, to the northeast, troops were regularly dropped a quarter or half-kilometer from their original objective; the chem lights allowed them to converge on the spot where they were supposed to go. In the middle of one mission, a trail of green lights was used to mark a new objective -- and show the easiest way to get to the place.
Later, a five-man "small kill team" or SKT, was set up about 10 kilometers north of Tarmiyah to ambush an insurgent crew. But that crew turned out to be larger than expected, and the SKT was suddenly being attacked by 10 Iraqis. Almost instantly, Captain Aaron Miller, stationed two kilometers to the south, was able to respond.
"They didn't have to tell us their location -- we knew it right away. So they could focus on the fight," Miller says.
Miller is still not happy with how much the system weighs. "Look, I need this like I need a 10th arm," he sighs. And all this stuff (Land Warrior does), my cell phone basically does the same at home." But Miller is committed to soldiers being networked. So he's willing to be the digital guinea pig. "It's got to start with someone."
The system has become more palatable to the Manchus because it's been pared down, in all sorts of ways. By consolidating parts, a 16-pound ensemble is now down to a little more than 10. A new, digital gun scope has been largely abandoned by the troops -- the system was too cumbersome and too slow to be effective. And now, not every soldier in the 4/9 has to lug around Land Warrior. Only team leaders and above are so equipped.
"It helped morale a lot," says Lt. Col. Prior. "Leaders need it to track where you're going next, and when to use the right route. But for Joe (average soldier) -- pulling security, climbing through a window -- it was too much."
It still is, for some members of the Manchus.
"If it were five pounds, it'd be money," says Sergeant First Class Benjamin Mulkey. "But right now, it's not worth the weight."
Sam Lee, another sergeant stationed in Tarmiyah, drives back and forth over a stretch of unpaved road. His Land Warrior system has frozen up, and tells him he's a few hundred meters away from his actual location. When he gets out, his fellow soldiers can talk fine over their radios. His Land Warrior model is dead.
And of course, everybody has to be plugged into the system in order for it to be worth a damn. At the end of an exhausting night's worth of house-to-house searches, Lieutenant Michael Bennett loses track of half of his platoon. They aren't very far away -- just a few blocks. But because no one is up on Land Warrior, it takes an hour of bleary-eyed scrambling for the platoon to be reunited.
But while some troops struggle with Land Warrior's basics, new features are being added to the system. Video feeds from small ground robots, pictures from flying drones and data from sniper-detecting sensors should all be available in the Manchus' monocles before their tour is over next fall.
The question is whether the 4/9 will be the last unit to wear the Land Warrior gear. Right now, there is no money in the Defense Department budget to similarly equip another set of soldiers. But the 2nd Infantry Division's 5th Brigade Combat Team is in the process of officially asking for the gear. And Land Warrior allies are also pushing Congress to include $60 to $80 million to give more troops the get-ups.
Neither effort has been successful, so far. So the future of the soldier-of-the-future still remains very much in doubt.

Eurasian Secret Services Daily Review

2007-09-09T15:25:00.000-05:00

09.09.2007
Eurasian Secret Services Daily Review
AIA
REVIEW TOPICS:
Russian espionage in UK at Cold War level, Moscow does not comment
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Director speaks out to Moscow newspaper
Lawyers of FSB Lieutenant-Colonel complained about groundlessness of his criminal case
High-ranking replacements to take place in security forces of Russia’s Dagestan
Extremist grouping’s female wing leader was second militant killed by FSB in Karachayevo-Cherkessia
Ukraine’s SBU reveals lack of information concerning acts of terrorism in Ministry of Transport
Yushchenko congratulated employees of military intelligence of Ukraine
Ukrainian military intelligence celebrates its 15 year anniversary
Amount of damage to security of Kyrgyzstan being established in current espionage case
Opening of the files ruined Bulgarian secret intelligence: candidate for mayor

Russian espionage in UK at Cold War level, Moscow does not comment
Unnamed British government sources say Russian espionage in Britain has reached Cold War levels.
The Daily Telegraph writes that about half the 62 diplomatic staff members at the Russian embassy in London are actually involved in spying, including military and commercial intelligence and monitoring dissidents.
According to the paper, their tasks range from seeking military and commercial secrets to monitoring Russian dissidents based in London, most notably Boris Berezovsky, the billionaire and outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin. Overseas spying by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has probably been accorded a higher priority in recent months, The Daily Telegraph marks. It adds that after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, overseas espionage was reduced temporarily simply because Russia, then in the grips of an economic crisis, could not afford the cost. But sources said they soon returned to their previous levels; the Russian espionage operation in Britain probably returned to Cold War levels a decade or more ago, the paper notes. The British newspaper quoted Mark Pritchard, the Conservative Member of Parliament, who chairs the cross-party parliamentary group on Russia, as saying that the high number of spies as diplomats “beggs the question of whether the Russians are more interested in diplomacy or in spying on Britain for political and military secrets”.
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service does not comment articles of the British press, head of the agency’s Press bureau, Sergei Ivanov, told the Moscow-based news agency RIA Novosti.

Sergei Lebedev

Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Director speaks out to Moscow newspaper
Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) General Sergei Lebedev said in his interview to the weekly Moskovskiye novosti that elements of the "Cold War " had began to revive in activity of some foreign secret services which organized "coloured" revolutions. He marked that „today Russia became an object of steadfast interest of experts of the certain profile”.
At the same time Lebedev acknowledges that there is a system of interaction between the Russian intelligence and intelligence services of the NATO countries and other western countries. Already for a long time there is an understanding in the international community, including the secret services, of necessity of association of efforts for counteraction to terrorism, the SVR Director marks.
By virtue of the specificics – the SVR has been conducting counteraction to distribution of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, drug trafficking and to other transnational threats to security and stability in the world on bilateral basis, Lebedev underlines. However in some cases, especially when it is a question of international terrorist groupings, the circle of the partners uniting efforts in struggle against the general harm, can be also wider, the SVR chief notes. „Principles of cooperation have universal character and have been exercised in practice. We have been applying them in interaction with special services of the NATO countries and with partners from the Asian, African and Latin American states”.
Lebedev says relations between the SVR of Russia and their colleagues from the CIS countries have closer character and are under construction on the basis of multilateral and bilateral agreements. „They provide versatile cooperation of security services and intelligence agencies, information exchange on a wide range of issues representing mutual interest. Specific tasks of mutual cooperation have been solved on evereyday basis.” Lebedev names regular meetings of heads of intelligence services of the CIS countries a good tradition.
According to Lebedev, the statements which have appeared recently in the West about radical activity of the Russian intelligence are mismatching the reality. He claims that in comparison with the times of the two main world block opposition, the Russian intelligence has reduced its presence abroad, has essentially reconstructed the activity, reconsidered and narrowed its priorities and refused from globalism.
„The western intelligence agencies have been operating not less, and sometimes even more vigorously (I even would tell, more aggressive), than the SVR.” Lebedev says „Frequent statements about activization of the SVR operations is consequence of political conjuncture, dictated by aspiration of counterintelligence to justify necessity of their existence, expansion of personnel to achieve increase in financing, etc.”
Moskovskiye novosti also writes about Lebedev’s biography. Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service has passed all steps of career in the intelligence, from an operative up to the head of Service. He was born on April 9, 1948 in the city of Dzhizak (Uzbek SSR), the same place where in 1965 he graduated from the school with a gold medal. His father, Nikolai Ivanovich, comes from Siberia, has served in Soviet troops in the WWII participting in fighting from Volga up to Austria, then worked as a driver and died in 1994. His mother, Nina Yakovlevna, a graduate of the Leningrad military-mechanical institute, has survived the Leningrad blockade. After the WWII she obtained higher financial education, worked as a bookkeeper, died in 2007. After graduation in 1970 from the Chernigov branch of Kiev Polytechnical Institute, Lebedev has been left to work in the institute, and later he was elected the secretary of the Chernigov city town committee of Komsomol. In 1971-1972 served in the army in the Kiev military district, then worked in Chernigov oblast Komsomol committee. Since 1973 he served in the state security system, since 1975 - in the foreign intelligence (the First Central administrative directorate of KGB of the USSR). Has obtained counterspy preparation at the Kiev school of KGB and intelligence education at the Red Banner Institute of KGB. In 1978 graduated from the Diplomatic Academy the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. Speaks German also English languages. Repeatedly has worked abroad: GDR, FRG, West Berlin, Germany. In 1998-2000 - official representative of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service in the USA. On May 20, 2000, appointed the SVR Director by the decree of the Russian President. Married for more than 30 years, his spouse Vera Mikhailovna is an engineer-chemist. They have two adult sons, two grandsons. Hobbies - work, family, summer dacha.

Lawyers of FSB Lieutenant-Colonel complained about groundlessness of his criminal case
Lawyers of Pavel Ryaguzov, Lieutenant-Colonel of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Pavel Rjaguzov have forwarded a complaint on illegality and groundlessness of excitation of criminal case against their client to the Moscow military garrison court, daily Kommersant writes, referring to a report by the Interfax news agency.
Ryaguzov’s detention was mentioned in connection with investigation of the murder of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya.
Ryaguzov’s defence underlines in their statement that Pavel Ryaguzov "is, indeed, accused of fulfilment of illegal, in opinion of invstigation, actions which have taken place in 2002, however he does not plead guilty, as he says he has acted within the framework of the legal field".
At the same time, the lawyers acknowedge that actions of Pavel Ryjaguzov and other employees of law enforcement bodies were already repeatedly checked and "recognized lawful by two independent officials representing various offices of Public Prosecutor".
"Checks in the directorate of internal security of the Ministry of Interior, directorate of injternal security of the FSB and in the State Office of Public Prosecutor have also been carried out and they came to the same conclusions", the lawyers mark in their application. In this connection the defence points out that initiation of a criminal case five years later on the facts which have been repeatedly checked up, is illegal.
Ryaguzov’s lawyer, Andrei Trepykhalin, told news agency Interfax that the charge was produced according to the articles on kidnapping and beating a resident of Ponikarov in 2002, extortion, illegal penetration into the dwelling and misuse of authority. Trepykhalin said his client had never been officially tied to the Politkovskaya case, though another security service officer had announced as much previously. The lawyer also said Ryagyuzov was not charged within the framework of the Politkovskaya murder case.

High-ranking replacements to take place in security forces of Russia’s Dagestan
Loud rearrangements have been taking place in security forces of Dagestan, radio Ekho Moskvy reports, referring to online site Kavkaz Times. Probably, the chief of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) republic directorate, Nikolai Gryaznov, has left his post, radio

Dagestan on map
says.
At the moment Gryaznov is on holidays, however, according to unofficial sources, right after that he either would leave for service for Moscow, or he would head the Russian Academy of FSB in the Russian capital. According to the source of the online site, Gryaznov’s departure is connected with the dissatisfaction with his work in the leadership of Dagestan. Besides cases of abduction of local residents by people in camouflage have become frequent recently in the republic.

Extremist grouping’s female wing leader was second militant killed by FSB in Karachayevo-Cherkessia
AIA already reported, referring to the Public relations centre of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), that two militants have been killed in the Russian-Georgian frontier zone, controlled by the Karachayevo-Cherkess border guard unit on September 5. One of them has been identified as Rustan Ionov, born in 1977, a resident of Psyzh, Karachayevo-Cherkess Republic, Moslem name Abu-Bakar. The FSB believes he was the leader of the religious and extremist community in the Karachayevo-Cherkess Republic and involved in the organisation of terrorist acts in the republic. There was no particular infromation on the second militant killed during the exchange of fire.
Daily Komsomolskaya pravda expands on the incident that Ionov was an „emir” of Karachayevo-Cherkessia and he reportedly found refuge in Georgia all the last year. He recruited and trained mercenaries with the support of the international terrorist community, daily alleges. The mercenaries themselves were making explosives and electronic mechanisms to fit them. Ionov was trying to transport 50 of such "homemade products" into Karachayevo-Cherkessia on September 5.
The press-service of Karachayevo-Cherkessia FSB directorate believes 15 kg of explosives would suffice for 50 large acts of terrorism. They say that most likely Ionov had planned to carry out the acts of terror in the North Caucasus, and first of all, in the territory of Karachayevo-Cherkessia.
The person accompanying Ionov was, in fact, Elvira Kytova, known among terrorists under a name of Amina, heading a female wing in his grouping. She recruited and trained suicide bombers and made explosives on pair with Ionov.
According to the FSB directorate press-service, in July and August the FSB operatives together with other law enforcement agencies have detained Ionov’s twenty accomplices.

Yushchenko congratulated employees of military intelligence of Ukraine
Supreme Commander in chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, President Viktor Yushchenko has congratulated employees of military intelligence of Ukraine on professional holiday, news agency RBC-Ukraine reports, referring to the press-service of the President.
The President has thanked the leadership of the agency and employees of the service for their work. " You adequately carry out complex mission which has been entrusted you by the state. Our country cannot effectively exist without your work. Without exaggeration, you do maintain safety and protection of the state, of all our citizens", news agency cites Yushchenko salutatory word.
Yushchenko has assured that as the Head of the state and Supreme Commander in chief of the Armed Forces together with the leadership of Ministry of Defence he holds the solution of the complex of problems of the Service in the centre of his attention. " I insist on essential strengthening of the state support that is given to intelligence agencies in modern conditions. It is not a simply wish and promise. My words do have and will have particular results", Yushchenko emphasized in his message.
According to the President, nowadays Ukraine requires "modern analytical, properly equipped, high quality intelligence which will be reliably protecting interests of the state in rigid competitive external conditions"."It is necessary to very carefully consider new tendencies, including present progress of world negotiating process in the collective security area", he added.
Celebrations on the occasion of the 15-th anniversary of the military intelligence om the basis of Central administrative directorate of intelligence of the Defence Ministry of Ukraine took place in the House of Officers in Kiev, according to the press-service of the President.

Ukrainian military intelligence celebrates its 15 year anniversary
Kiev-based daily Segodnya writes that one year after declaration of Ukraine’s independence, on September 7, 1992, a decree on creation of Central administrative directorate of intelligence of the Defence Ministry of Ukraine was signed.
Contrary to ordinary opinion that the nearest neighbours-Russians have been actively interfering in the process of becoming and development of the service, even much more serious resistance had proceeded, so to say, from within, from the local military leaders, the paper marks. – Those were own politicians, officials, militaries, who were putting up different barriers, — Alexander Skipalsky, the first head of the GUR (Main Inteligence Directorate), now Security Service of Ukraine Vice-Chairman, recollects.
He mentions an example when in 1993, a delegation of the Intelligence Department of the US Ministry of Defence paid visit to Ukraine — Skipalsky accompanied the guests. Americans were shown object of radio engineering intelligence Zvezda near Odessa, the Kharkov higher school preparing experts on antiaircraft rocket complexes -300, military airfield at Priluki, where strategic bombers u-160 and u-95, capable to bear nuclear weapons were stationed. The schedule of visit of the US delegation was coordinated on the top-level, the President, Prime-Minister, Minister of Defence knew about it. After Americans have left, in 3-4 days Skipalsky got to know that the SBU agents, his former subordinates from military counterspionage, had been investigating the schedule, people and sites the US delegation visited. They had received the order to prove that as a result of the visit significant damage was ostensibly caused to national interests of Ukraine, and state and military secrets were divulged. — Someone in Ukraine was very much desirable to inflate a big scandal, — Skipalsky recollects those days not without sarcasm.
Little is known about overseas activity of the GUR. However, this closed structure not once appeared in an epicentre of dramatic events at home, Segodnya underlines.
In November 2004, at the height of "the Orange revolution", rebellious "Orange" leaders who had prevented, as they said "a bloody Sunday”, secretly gathered at „the Island”, as the directorate’s basis is called in abbreviated form, at Podole in Kiev. According to the version of the "Orange", divisions of Interior troops were ready to be put forward against the people rallying on the Kiev’s main square.
Then a little time passed and one of potential heroes, the GUR chief Alexander Galaka became temporarily jobless. He was removed from his post, without explanation of reasons. Galaka proved the incompetence of the decision and was restored in his position by the court. Last spring, members of parliament Lev Gnatenko, Oleg Kalashnikov, and others accused GUR of preparation for coup d’etat: three special-task forces groups were allegedly preparing to carry out power capture of the Council of Ministers, the Supreme Rada, to arrest members of the government and parliament members from the national unity coalition. However, according to conclusions of Military Prosecutor’s Office those accusations have not proved to be true, the paper marks.

Ukraine’s SBU reveals lack of information concerning acts of terrorism in Ministry of Transport

Valentin Nalyvaychenko
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) announced it had no information from the Ministry of Transport of Ukraine concerning possible preparation of acts of terrorism on the railway, online paper proUA reports, referring to acting head of the SBU, Valentin Nalyvaychenko, who spoke to journalists after session of staff of the interdepartmental commission of the SBU Antiterrorist centre.
«We precisely ascertain absence of information submitted by the Ministry of Transport somehow testifying or specifying possibility of preparation or carrying out of acts of terrorism or other socially dangerous actions», emphasized the acting SBU head. Nalyvaychenko also informed that the session of the commission had been called in connection with the statement of Minister of Transport and Communication, Nikolai Rudkovsky, on September 4, about alleged presence of information concerning preparation of acts of terrorism on the railway. Nalyvaychenko noted that Rudkovsky was invited to session of the Antiterrorist centre, though he had not arrived there. Instead of the minister one of his assistants was present there, the acting SBU head said.

Opening of the files ruined Bulgarian secret intelligence: candidate for mayor
Candidate for mayor of coastal Varna city in Bulgaria, Veselin Danov, said in an interview to Radio Focus Varna that the Bulgarian secret intelligence have been ruined with the opening of the communist secret service files. Danov added that the files of I and II Chief Police Department’s employees shouldn’t have been opened. According to him that act of the state has condemned people to destruction who are working abroad, Focus News Agency reports.
Meanwhile The Sofia Echo expands that some of the sections of the communist-era secret services have been among the best represented by parliament members.
“Breza, Kolos (…) Karamfil-4, Panorama, Electronica, Express, Propaganda, as well as Petyo and Zravkov are the kind of pseudonyms used for agents and collaborators of the secret services who have been elected as parliament members after 1990,” it cites daily Dnevnik. Most of the ex-agents in the parliament, 43, were collaborators to the secret services in the regional departments of the Interior Ministry. Another 10 members of the parliament have been recruited by the Sofia city section of the former secret services.
The duties of agents included collecting information, recruitment, and to exert influence, reported the daily. The next largest group among the parliament members with 21 have been agents for the central management bureau of the secret services, involved in counter-intelligence. The third largest group of agents, 19, were part of the external intelligence. In some cases parliament members were consecutively involved in reporting, intelligence gathering and contra-intelligence, The Sofia Echo adds.

Amount of damage to security of Kyrgyzstan being established in current espionage case
Security services of Kyrgyzstan have indicted the group of persons suspected of gathering and transfer abroad of classified information, news agency Kazahstan segodnya reports. News agency RIA Novosti reported earlier that the persons charged are Defence Ministry pensioner Valery Patsula, Vladimir Berezhnoy, ksat myrkanov and staff officer of Kyrgyz State National Security Committee Alexander Gryb.
"Criminal case has been initiated according to paragraph 302/1 of Kyrgyz Republic Criminal code (transfer or gathering of information making service secret with the purpose of transfer to foreign organizations),” news agency cites a representative of the press centre of the State National Security Committee of Kyrgyzstan(KGNB).
Four persons who earlier served in security forces of Kyrgyzstan have been charged within the framework of this criminal case and are in the investigatory insulator of the KGNB now.
"It is too early to make conclusions and hasty political statements about the high treason case involving employees of the Ministry of Defence and secret services of Kyrgyzstan," press-centre of the State National Security Committee of Kyrgyzstan says in its announcement.
In this connection, the KGNB press- centre has called representatives of mass-media to be more correct in their remarks on the case as "not confirmed facts can provide negative background to the friendship of Kyrgyzstan with the countries, taking a priority place in the foreign policy of the republic". At present investigators have been establishing in what amount the classified information was transferred by the accused, Kazahstan segodnya adds.

Unrestricted Warfare

2007-09-08T05:27:00.000-05:00

Unrestricted Warfare

Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui
(Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)
Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999)

[FBIS Editor's Note: The following selections are taken from "Unrestricted Warfare," a book published in China in February 1999 which proposes tactics for developing countries, in particular China, to compensate for their military inferiority vis-à-vis the United States during a high-tech war. The selections include the table of contents, preface, afterword, and biographical information about the authors printed on the cover. The book was written by two PLA senior colonels from the younger generation of Chinese military officers and was published by the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House in Beijing, suggesting that its release was endorsed by at least some elements of the PLA leadership. This impression was reinforced by an interview with Qiao and laudatory review of the book carried by the party youth league's official daily Zhongguo Qingnian Bao on 28 June.

Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed. In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . . .The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it." (see FBIS translation of the interview, OW2807114599).

[End FBIS Editor's Note]

Newest Spy Gadget: Social Networking

2007-09-06T07:02:00.000-05:00

Newest Spy Gadget: Social Networking
By ASHLEY M. HEHER – 14 hours ago

CHICAGO (AP) — As spy gear goes, a social-networking Web site doesn't quite have the same cachet as some of James Bond's high-tech gadgets.

But the U.S. intelligence community is taking a page from popular online hangouts like Facebook and News Corp.'s MySpace to help encourage operatives to share information. In December, agency leaders are launching a social-networking site just for spooks.

The classified "A-Space" ultimately will grow to include blogs, searchable databases, libraries of reports, collaborative word processing and other tools to help analysts quickly trade, update and edit information.

It comes on the heels of the year-old Intellipedia, a Web site modeled after the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Intellipedia has been gaining traction among the intelligence agencies and already has nearly 30,000 posted articles and 4,800 edits added every workday.

Although A-Space will be built with commercially available software, organizers are quick to dismiss any criticism about security, saying all sensitive data will be stored behind a thicket of classified safeguards that they are developing themselves.

The social-networking efforts, led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, are emerging as the nation's intelligence community comes under renewed criticism for a lack of cooperation and communication — something a new internal CIA report said contributed to the information breakdown before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Aside from simply being able to share documents back and forth, experts who are in the same field but work for different agencies could meet each other virtually and swap ideas and information directly. Experts say the current procedures for sharing information is so cumbersome that such communication is now impossible.

"It's just a better way to build and grow that network so that improved analysis can come out the other end," said Robert Cardillo, deputy director of analysis for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Organizers acknowledge it may be difficult to erase generations of territorial tendencies and prevent spats among the country's 16 intelligence agencies, which often want credit for their own discoveries.

But they hope the influx of younger operatives — half the intelligence analysts employed by the U.S. government have been on the job for no more than five years — will help shelve old feuds and embrace Web tools already in widespread use.

"It's a way to build the social network for all analysts," said Mike Wertheimer, assistant deputy director of national intelligence for analytic transformation and technology, who is leading the initiative. "We put more eyes on more problems."

Development of the $5 million project began in June, and a pilot version will be available in December, with features to be added over the next year. Ultimately, the system may grow to include an unclassified network for use by state and local law enforcement and even some foreign agencies.

Classified information will only be available to individuals with the right security clearance and site minders will work to sniff out inappropriate use, much the way credit card companies look for fraudulent charges.

For example, A-Space will be designed to detect if an expert in Southeast Asian militaries is running inappropriate queries on Latin American drug cartels.

"We're hoping that people will give us the benefit of the doubt," Wertheimer said.

But three months before A-Space is to go live, there's ample skepticism.

Richard L. Russell, a former CIA analyst who teaches at the National Defense University, says the government needs to focus on building better analysis and human intelligence, not fancy tools.

"You may have a great technological infrastructure for managing information, but if you put garbage into it, the output will be garbage," he said.

Others said the initiative is a giant leap for the three-letter agencies that find themselves stumbling to share information through bureaucratic channels and cumbersome firewalls.

"A site that's open to all 16 intelligence agencies, that allows them to chat more freely, I think is a darn good idea and may help them get around some of these issues," said Donald C. Daniel, a security studies professor at Georgetown University. "But it may be hit or miss."

Experts say the service will only be as effective as those who use it. And with many older workers puzzled by their younger colleagues' obsessive use of Facebook and its ilk, full-blown use could take time.

Mark Lowenthal, president of The Intelligence & Security Academy and the government's former assistant director of central intelligence for analysis and production, admits he's baffled by social-networking sites and isn't sure if A-Space is the ultimate solution to fixing problems in the agencies.

But he believes the proposal has merit, especially as baby boomers retire and are replaced by younger analysts.

"Clearly, we don't always behave like a community so anything you can do to help foster that to a degree is a good thing," he said. "We want to do better. Anybody who's dealt with adapting technology to the intelligence community will tell you that the intelligence community has not been brilliant in catching up."

On the Net:
http://www.dni.gov

Ice-free Arctic could be here in 23 years

2007-09-04T22:34:00.000-05:00

Ice-free Arctic could be here in 23 years
David Adam, environment correspondent
The Guardian
Wednesday September 5 2007
The Arctic ice cap has collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer an levels of sea ice in the region now stand at a record low, scientists sai last night. Experts said they were "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an are almost twice as big as Britain disappearing in the last week alone. So much ic has melted this summer that the north-west passage across the top of Canada i fully navigable, and observers say the north-east passage along Russia's Arcti coast could open later this month. If the increased rate of melting continues, th summertime Arctic could be totally free of ice by 2030

Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University in Denver which released the figures, said: "It's amazing. It's simply fallen off a cliff and we're still losing ice." The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002.

Dr Serreze said: "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice, then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate. It seems that the Arctic is going to be a very different place within our lifetimes, and certainly within our children's lifetimes."

The new figures show that sea ice extent is currently down to 4.4m square kilometres (1.7m square miles) and still falling. The previous record low was 5.3m square kilometres in September 2005. From 1979 to 2000 the average sea ice extent was 7.7m square kilometres. The minimum extent of sea ice usually occurs late in September each year, as the freezing Arctic winter begins to bite.

The sea ice usually then begins to freeze again over the winter. But Dr Serreze said that would be difficult this year. "This summer we've got all this open water and added heat going into the ocean. That is going to make it much harder for the ice to grow back. What we've seen this year sets us up for an even worse year next year." The winter ice has already failed to make up for increased losses in the summer in each of the last two years.

Changes in wind and ocean circulation patterns can help reduce sea ice extent, but Dr Serreze said the main culprit was man-made global warming. "The rules are starting to change and what's changing the rules is the input of greenhouse gases. This year puts the exclamation mark on a series of record lows that tell us something is happening."

The dramatic loss is further bad news for the region's wildlife which relies on the sea ice, such as polar bears. The animals use its coastal fringes to find food, and as the summer ice retreats to the north, they must swim further to hunt for seals. Some colonies of bears have already showed signs of malnutrition and biologists say there could be a severe drop in their population within a few decades, though they may not go extinct.

Yesterday's announcement will also increase political interest in the Arctic, with a number of countries currently jostling to exploit the oil and gas reserves believed to lie under the ocean, which could become more accessible as the icy cover retreats. Last month Russia claimed a huge area around the north pole, and Denmark and Canada are preparing similar claims, which rely on showing that a chain of underwater mountains that runs across the region are connected to their respective continental shelves.

The Spy who billed ME.

2007-09-04T20:47:00.000-05:00

Forbes Book Review
A Private War
Michael Maiello, 09.01.07, 6:00 AM ET

Outsourced by R.J. Hillhouse ($26, Forge, 2007).

The 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, spend 70% of their budgets on private contractors. The contracts are classified so there's almost no civilian oversight. At a recent marketing presentation, an intelligence-procurement official used a PowerPoint presentation about intelligence contractors that featured the pithy slide, "We can't spy if we can't buy!"

The military has contractors as well. Private companies, mostly made up of ex- or retired military types, perform security functions in Iraq. That's what we're told, anyway. Again, the contracts are classified and the oversight isn't perfect or even possible, Iraq being a war zone and all.

Enter author R.J. Hillhouse with a fictional account of military and intelligence mercenaries in Iraq called Outsourced. This debut novel introduces Hillhouse as the Tom Clancy of the corporate military and intelligence age. In Outsourced, Hillhouse presents the contractors mostly as well-meaning patriots, though they are corruptible. Most of the companies she names are fictional, but on her blog, www.thespywhobilledme.com, Hillhouse points to some of her inspirations: SAIC, Lockheed Martin and of course, Halliburton.

Like Clancy did with the military, Hillhouse has researched her subject well. Anonymous sources within the intelligence field have helped her along the way. Her nonfiction work about the CIA and the Pentagon has appeared in The Washington Post and The New York Times. There's some implication that what Hillhouse has revealed in Outsourced are truths that she couldn't talk about in plain nonfiction.

The story is key here, though. Any lover of thrillers and suspense novels will enjoy Outsourced. Camille Black is a former CIA counterterrorism officer who has gone into private practice as the CEO of Black Management. She's in Iraq, taking covert assignments for the U.S. government. Hillhouse finds plenty of comic moments as Black flexes her (ample) muscles in the man's world of covert operations and mercenaries. With a sharp tongue, a sharper knife and some obvious martial talents, Black is like a cross between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Jack Ryan.

Black finds herself with a CIA contract to eliminate her ex-fiancé, Hunter Stone. Stone is working undercover for the Pentagon, and it's unclear at the beginning of the book if he betrayed Black because of his job or to protect his own nefarious, potentially anti-American activities, including selling captured weapons to Iraqi insurgents and Al-Qaeda terrorists. Another military contractor, called Rubicon, is Black's competition. What follows is a romp through the Iraq war along with several turns and revelations that shouldn't be detailed in a review.

Hillhouse finds her subjects in the headlines out of Iraq. She imagines insurgents building car bombs and kidnapped Americans who nobody seems to be looking for. Hillhouse's prose is unadorned to say the least, but anything more fanciful would detract from the action. The book moves quickly from point to point and there's an action-film sensibility throughout. It's also fun, and perhaps illustrative, to wonder how much of this is from Hillhouse's imagination and how much is the result of stories that we haven't been told yet.

Outsourced is the first novel of its kind, because the military and intelligence agencies of the United States have, for the first time in history, given in entirely to the corporate-outsourcing trend. Hillhouse has given us the first word in a conversation that will surely outlast both the Iraq war and the War on Terror.

Defectors reveal hard road to Korea reunification

2007-09-04T20:29:00.000-05:00

Defectors reveal hard road to Korea reunification
By Sunny Lee

BEIJING - For more than a decade, Jeon Woo-taek has been a "sought-after" figure by the media, including CNN, to comment on North Korean issues related to unification and refugees. He was also invited as a speaker to numerous international forums, including one in which German and South Korean scholars brainstormed their ideas for unification. Jeon is not a political strategist. Nor is he a researcher with a think-tank. He is a shrink.

The psychiatrist at Yonsei University Medical School in Seoul has pioneered the study of North Korean defectors' mental health for 15 years. He has studied as many as 600 North Koreans now living in South Korea, and has become a strong advocate for the "unification of hearts" as the prerequisite for political and geographical unification of the two Koreas.

North and South Koreans "think that they know each other very well. It's their mistake," Jeon said in a telephone interview with Asia Times Online.

Even though the Korean people had lived as a single nation state for more than 1,300 years before they were divided into two countries at the end of World War II, Jeon believes the difference created during the ensuing 60 years is significant and damaging enough to require serious attention and concern.

To get to the bottom of the North Korean psyche, Jeon had to ask them questions. But how? North Korean settlers in the South were usually reluctant to talk about their stories to others - much less to a psychiatrist - as they feared that they were under suspicion and surveillance by the South Korean government. It is a mentality and old habits they transferred from North Korea. Some defectors frequently change their phone numbers to avoid contacts with other people.

"This is one reason why questionnaires and superficial interviews had little success," Jeon said, implicitly panning some of the approaches by non-governmental organizations.

In fact, one of the most striking characteristics of the defectors, Jeon said, is their suspicious attitude toward people. And that caused a particular problem for him. Understandably, all defectors interviewed by him were reluctant to sign the consent paper and equally reluctant to be recorded or filmed. So Jeon and his team had to make an extra effort to build rapport and earn their trust first. The researchers also assured them they were not government agents.

Only then was Jeon's team able to proceed with the interviews. But the results were striking. For example, in one study, Jeon found close to half (48%) of the North Korean settlers in South Korea responded "no" to the question: Do you think North and South Koreans will easily understand each other and get along well after unification?

That's a very important result, and something that Jeon said the South Korean government should heed, because the North Korean defectors are regarded as a "litmus test" for a unified Korea. Defectors are also seen as a window to the North. The ways they behave and think are seen as general examples of how South Koreans believe all of their Northern counterparts act.

For their part, the North Koreans cited such significant problems for unification as the South Koreans' "different way of thinking" and "individualistic behavior" (65.6%) and the economic disparity between the North and South (25%), while 13% mentioned the lack of mutual understanding and prejudice as barriers.

Interestingly, however, they pointed out that cultural differences (42%) were a bigger problem than political differences (11%).

During the interviews, Jeon's team also found that some well-meaning South Korean sponsors only make the situation worse by taking well-meaning but ultimately wrong-headed approaches toward integrating North Koreans into Southern society. For example, most sponsors for the North Korean refugees in South Korea come from religious organizations, but because they don't understand the official atheistic policy of Pyongyang, they encourage the defectors to begin attending church regularly.

"Taught in the North that religion is evil and exploitative, the North Koreans felt that they were being forced to attend church and were reminded of the ideological indoctrination sessions in the North. This put considerable strain on the relationship between the North Koreans and their Southern sponsors," Jeon said in a report.

In the report, North Korean settlers also displayed an ambivalent attitude toward capitalism's ultimate symbol - money. Taught that money is the instrument of slavery in a capitalist society and a symbol of selfishness and evil, as many as 78% of Jeon's interviewees revealed an ambivalent attitude toward wealth.

As one defector put it: "I do not want to be a slave to money. But at the same time, I desperately need money to live in this society. At first, when I received money after my first anti-communism lecture in South Korea, I felt insulted, because in North Korea a lecture is not regarded as labor, and I did that from my heart. But if I take money, it looks like I am only speaking for financial gain."

Jeon's research also revealed the serious depth of post-traumatic experiences the North Korean refugees had endured. As many as 87% of defectors had personally seen public executions in North Korea; 81% saw their family members or relatives starving to death; 83% said they felt their own life was in danger because of their fear of being caught by Chinese authorities as they fled.

Jeon's team also discovered that 69% of the North Korean settlers in the South suffer from persistent anxiety, 47% experience clinical depression, 34% insomnia, 28% excessive drinking and 22% recurrent nightmares.

The most pervasive issue for North Korean defectors across the board, however, was loneliness (65%). This is understandable, because 69% of Jeon's study subjects defected without their families; 44% of them could not even inform their families of their intention to defect. Once in the South, it was difficult for them to get close to South Korean people because of their low economic status, cultural differences, and a lack of assurance whether they would be accepted.

Surprisingly, 34% of them also said it was difficult for them to make friends with other defectors. Because of mistrust and suspicion, some said they believed that fellow defectors might actually be North Korean agents.

All these figures illustrate how far people of the same ethnicity have drifted away from each other during the past 60 years, and as such, Jeon said he believes it is important that both North and South Koreans to increase their mutual "cultural literacy".

"We need to learn more about each other. South Koreans need to know more about how North Koreans think and why they behave the way they do and vice versa. Only then, our understanding will get deeper and we will be able to embrace each other," Jeon said. Seoul is extremely self-conscious of how North Koreans fare in the South. It's not only because of international attention, but also because North Koreans who are thinking about defecting to the South are very sensitive to rumors about how defectors are treated by the South Korean government and how they adjust to their new lives. The lives and adaptation of the defectors may influence the attitude of North Korean people toward South Korea and, ultimately, also affect their desire for unification.

Since Jeon is publicly known as the "psychiatrist who deals with North Korean mental problems", he has become increasingly cautious about the media, as well. He fears that his publicity might have negative repercussions on people's perception of defectors.

For example, although he deals with the mental-health issues of North Koreans, he said it doesn't mean that all defectors suffer from mental illness. Although his research includes defectors' accounts of traumatic experiences, such as rape or human trafficking, he said it doesn't mean every defector suffered such horrors.

"Mental illness is a very subjective matter until it develops to show objective symptoms. We should be careful not to give the impression that all [North Koreans] have some sort of mental problems," Jeon said.

The total number of North Korean refugees in the South passed the 10,000 mark in April 2006, according to data from South Korea's Ministry of Unification. Most of these defectors literally risked their lives to go there. For them, South Korea meant a land of hope and economic prosperity. But once in the South, things were not always hopeful, as Jeon's research has revealed.

Jeon said it would take two or three generations for the two Koreans to achieve the "unification of hearts".

"We should be ready for a long stretch. Eventually, we need a new generation who grow up in a unified Korea. We shouldn't be too anxious about the slow progress. Look at Germany. It's been 20 years since unification, but they still have some problems. Likewise, we should take a 'long-breath' approach," he said.

Sunny Lee is a journalist based in Beijing, where he has lived for five years. A native of South Korea, Lee is a graduate of Harvard University and Beijing Foreign Studies University.

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

I think that you will also find the links below interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITBqRSMBWaM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Frfaunplugged%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F2007%2F05%2F10%2Fsouth%2Dkorea%2Dnkorean%2Ddefectors%2Din%2Dpoor%2Dmental%2Dphysical%2Dhealth%2F

The YouTUBE video is interesting but the comments exchange below that is also enlightening.

And finally, the link immediately below contains elements similar to the story above but with some mroe detail:
http://rfaunplugged.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/south-korea-nkorean-defectors-in-poor-mental-physical-health/

....and one last thing: Jeon Woo-taek's similar report from 2000:
http://www.ymj.or.kr/2000/pdf/06362.pdf

Are We Failing Our Geniuses?

2007-08-31T07:34:00.000-05:00

Are We Failing Our Geniuses?
TIME
John Cloud
Thursday, Aug. 16, 200
Any sensible culture would know what to do with Annalisee Brasil. The 14-year-old not only has the looks of a South American model but is also one of the brightest kids of her generation. When Annalisee was 3, her mother Angi Brasil noticed that she was stringing together word cards composed not simply into short phrases but into complete, grammatically correct sentences. After the girl turned 6, her mother took her for an IQ test. Annalisee found the exercises so easy that she played jokes on the testers--in one case she not only put blocks in the correct order but did it backward too. Angi doesn't want her daughter's IQ published, but it is comfortably above 145, placing the girl in the top 0.1% of the population. Annalisee is also a gifted singer: last year, although just 13, she won a regional high school competition conducted by the National Association of Teachers of Singing.

Annalisee should be the star pupil at a school in her hometown of Longview, Texas. While it would be too much to ask for a smart kid to be popular too, Annalisee is witty and pretty, and it's easy to imagine she would get along well at school. But until last year, Annalisee's parents--Angi, a 53-year-old university assistant, and Marcelo, 63, who recently retired from his job at a Caterpillar dealership--couldn't find a school willing to take their daughter unless she enrolled with her age-mates. None of the schools in Longview--and even as far away as the Dallas area--were willing to let Annalisee skip more than two grades. She needed to skip at least three--she was doing sixth-grade work at age 7. Many school systems are wary of grade skipping even though research shows that it usually works well both academically and socially for gifted students--and that holding them back can lead to isolation and underachievement. So Angi home schooled Annalisee.

But Angi felt something was missing in her daughter's life. Annalisee, whose three siblings are grown, didn't have a rich social network of other kids. By 13, she had moved beyond her mother's ability to meaningfully teach her. The family talked about sending her to college, but everyone was hesitant. Annalisee needed to mature socially. By the time I met her in February, she had been having trouble getting along with others. "People are, I must admit it, a lot of times intimidated by me," she told me; modesty isn't among her many talents. She described herself as "perfectionistic" and said other students sometimes had "jealousy issues" regarding her.

The system failed Annalisee, but could any system be designed to accommodate her rare gifts? Actually, it would have been fairly simple (and virtually cost-free) to let her skip grades, but the lack of awareness about the benefits of grade skipping is emblematic of a larger problem: our education system has little idea how to cultivate its most promising students. Since well before the Bush Administration began using the impossibly sunny term "no child left behind," those who write education policy in the U.S. have worried most about kids at the bottom, stragglers of impoverished means or IQs. But surprisingly, gifted students drop out at the same rates as nongifted kids--about 5% of both populations leave school early. Later in life, according to the scholarly Handbook of Gifted Education, up to one-fifth of dropouts test in the gifted range. Earlier this year, Patrick Gonzales of the U.S. Department of Education presented a paper showing that the highest-achieving students in six other countries, including Japan, Hungary and Singapore, scored significantly higher in math than their bright U.S. counterparts, who scored about the same as the Estonians. Which all suggests we may be squandering a national resource: our best young minds.

In 2004-05, the most recent academic year for which the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) has data, U.S. universities awarded 43,354 doctorates--more than ever during the 50 years NORC has gathered the data. But the rate of increase in the number of U.S. doctorates has fallen dramatically since 1970, when it hit nearly 15% for the year; for more than a decade, the number of doctorates has grown less than 3.5% a year. The staggering late-1960s growth in Ph.D.s followed a period of increased attention on gifted kids after Sputnik. Now we're coasting.

To some extent, complacency is built into the system. American schools spend more than $8 billion a year educating the mentally retarded. Spending on the gifted isn't even tabulated in some states, but by the most generous calculation, we spend no more than $800 million on gifted programs. But it can't make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential.

We take for granted that those with IQs at least three standard deviations below the mean (those who score 55 or lower on IQ tests) require "special" education. But students with IQs that are at least three standard deviations above the mean (145 or higher) often have just as much trouble interacting with average kids and learning at an average pace. Shouldn't we do something special for them as well? True, these are IQs at the extremes. Of the 62 million school-age kids in the U.S., only about 62,000 have IQs above 145. (A similar number have IQs below 55.) That's a small number, but they appear in every demographic, in every community. What to do with them? Squandered potential is always unfortunate, but presumably it is these powerful young minds that, if nourished, could one day cure leukemia or stop global warming or become the next James Joyce--or at least J.K. Rowling.

In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting everyone up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel to their limit. It has become more important for schools to identify deficiencies than to cultivate gifts. Odd though it seems for a law written and enacted during a Republican Administration, the social impulse behind No Child Left Behind is radically egalitarian. It has forced schools to deeply subsidize the education of the least gifted, and gifted programs have suffered. The year after the President signed the law in 2002, Illinois cut $16 million from gifted education; Michigan cut funding from $5 million to $500,000. Federal spending declined from $11.3 million in 2002 to $7.6 million this year.

What's needed is a new model for gifted education, an urgent sense that prodigious intellectual talents are a threatened resource. That's the idea behind the Davidson Academy of Nevada, in Reno, which was founded by a wealthy couple, Janice and Robert Davidson, but chartered by the state legislature as a public, tuition-free school. The academy will begin its second year Aug. 27, and while it will have just 45 students, they are 45 of the nation's smartest children. They are kids from age 11 to 16 who are taking classes at least three years beyond their grade level (and in some cases much more; two of the school's prodigies have virtually exhausted the undergraduate math curriculum at the University of Nevada, Reno, whose campus hosts the academy). Among Davidson's students are a former state chess champion, a girl who was a semifinalist in the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge at age 11 (the competition is open to kids as old as 14) and a boy who placed fourth in both the Nevada spelling and geography bees even though he was a 12-year-old competing against kids as old as 15. And last year the school enrolled another talented kid from a town 1,700 miles (some 2,700 km) away: Annalisee Brasil, whose mother moved with her to Reno so Annalisee could attend the school (her father was working in Longview at the time).

The academy is being watched closely in education circles. The Davidsons are well-connected philanthropists who made their fortune in the education-software business--Jan and a friend conceived the hit Math Blaster program in the early 1980s. She and her husband sold Davidson & Associates for roughly $1.1 billion in 1996. They have given millions of dollars to universities and tens of thousands to Republican politicians like George W. Bush and Senator John Ensign of Nevada. Gifted kids often draw only flickering interest from government officials, but Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings attended the Davidson Academy's opening.

At the academy, the battered concept of IQ--complicated in recent years by the idea of multiple intelligences, including artistic and emotional acuity--is accepted there without the encumbrances of politics. The school is a rejection of the thoroughly American notion that if most just try hard enough, we could all be talented. Many school administrators oppose ability grouping on the theory that it can perpetuate social inequalities, but at the Davidson Academy, even the 45 élite students are grouped by ability into easier and harder English, math and science classes. The school poses blunt questions about American education: Has the drive to ensure equity over excellence gone too far? If so, is the answer to segregate the brightest kids?

HOW WE SEE THEM

AS A CULTURE, WE FEEL DEEPLY ambiguous about genius. We venerate Einstein, but there is no more detested creature than the know-it-all. In one 1996 study from Gifted Education Press Quarterly, 3,514 high school students were asked whether they would rather be the best-looking, smartest or most athletic kids. A solid 54% wanted to be smartest (37% wanted to be most athletic, and 9% wanted to be best looking). But only 0.3% said the reason to be smartest was to gain popularity. We like athletic prodigies like Tiger Woods or young Academy Award winners like Anna Paquin. But the mercurial, aloof, annoying nerd has been a trope of our culture, from Bartleby the Scrivener to the dorky PC guy in the Apple ads. Intellectual precocity fascinates but repels.

Educators have long debated what to do with highly gifted children. As early as 1926, Columbia education professor Leta Hollingworth noted that kids who score between 125 and 155 on IQ tests have the "socially optimal" level of intelligence; those with IQs over 160 are often socially isolated because they are so different from peers--more mini-adults than kids. Reading Hollingworth, I was reminded of Annalisee, who at 13 spoke in clear, well-modulated paragraphs, as though she were a TV commentator or college professor. For an adult, the effect is quite pleasant, but I imagine other kids find Annalisee's precision a bit strange.

In Hollingworth's day, when we were a little less sensitive to snobbery, it wasn't as difficult for high-ability kids to skip grades. But since at least the mid-1980s, schools have often forced gifted students to stay in age-assigned grades--even though a 160-IQ kid trying to learn at the pace of average, 100-IQ kids is akin to an average girl trying to learn at the pace of a retarded girl with an IQ of 40. Advocates for gifted kids consider one of the most pernicious results to be "cooperative learning" arrangements in which high-ability students are paired with struggling kids on projects. Education professor Miraca Gross of the University of New South Wales in Sydney has called the current system a "lockstep curriculum ... in what is euphemistically termed the 'inclusion' classroom." The gifted students, she notes, don't feel included.

We tend to assume that the highly gifted will eventually find their way--they're smart, right? The misapprehension that genius simply emerges unbidden is related to our mixed feelings about intelligence: we know Alex Rodriguez had to practice to become a great baseball player, and we don't think of special schools for gymnasts or tennis prodigies as élitist--a charge already leveled against the Davidson Academy. But giftedness on the playing field and giftedness in, say, a lab aren't so different. As Columbia education professor Abraham Tannenbaum has written, "Giftedness requires social context that enables it." Like a muscle, raw intelligence can't build if it's not exercised.

People often wonder how to tell if their child is gifted. Truly gifted kids are almost always autodidacts. Take Max Oswald-Selis. He moved to Reno from Sydney with his mother Gael Oswald so that he could attend Davidson. Max is 12. The first time I saw him at the academy, he was reading an article about the Supreme Court. He likes to fence. He loves Latin because "it's a very regimented language ... There's probably at least 28 different endings for any given verb, because there's first-, second- and third-person singular and plural for each tense ..." He went on like this for some time. Max didn't get along especially well with classmates in Sydney and later Kent, England, where his mother first moved him in search of an appropriate school--and where she says he was beaten on the playground.

Max is Gael's only child, so when he taught himself to read at 3--she says she hadn't even taught him the alphabet--she wasn't sure it was so unusual. Then around age 4, he read aloud from a medical book in the doctor's office, and the doctor recommended intelligence testing. At 4, Max had the verbal skills of a 13-year-old. He skipped kindergarten, but he was still bored, and his mother despaired. No system is going to be able to keep up, she thought.

Gael, a math teacher, began to research giftedness and found that high-IQ kids can become isolated adults. "They end up often as depressed adults ... who don't have friends or who find it difficult to function," she says. Actually, research shows that gifted kids given appropriately challenging environments--even when that means being placed in classes of much older students--usually turn out fine. At the University of New South Wales, Gross conducted a longitudinal study of 60 Australians who scored at least 160 on IQ tests beginning in the late '80s. Today most of the 33 students who were not allowed to skip grades have jaded views of education, and at least three are dropouts. "These young people find it very difficult to sustain friendships because, having been to a large extent socially isolated at school, they have had much less practice ... in developing and maintaining social relationships," Gross has written. "A number have had counseling. Two have been treated for severe depression." By contrast, the 17 kids who were able to skip at least three grades have mostly received Ph.D.s, and all have good friends.

At the Davidson Academy, all the kids are skipping ahead quickly--in some cases they completed more than two years of material last year. There's no sixth grade or ninth grade or any grade at the academy, just three tracks ("core," "college prep" and "college prep with research"). The curriculums are individualized and fluid--some students take college-prep English but core-level math. I sat in on the Algebra II class one day, but it wasn't so much a traditional class as a study session guided by the teacher, Darren Ripley. Kids worked from different parts of the textbook. (One 11-year-old was already halfway through; most Americans who take Algebra II do so at 15 or 16.) Occasionally Ripley would show a small group how to solve a problem on the whiteboard, but there was no lecture.

THE FOUNDERS

ULTIMATELY THE ACADEMY'S MOST important gift to its students is social, not academic. One of the main reasons Jan and Bob Davidson founded the school was to provide a nurturing social setting for the highly gifted. Through another project of theirs, the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, each year the Davidsons assist 1,200 highly gifted students around the U.S. who need help persuading their schools to let them skip a grade or who want to meet other kids like them. Often the kids are wasting away in average classes, something that drives Bob Davidson crazy: "I mean, that's criminal to send a kid [who already reads well] to kindergarten ... Somebody should go to jail for that! That is emotional torture!"

Davidson, 64, carries an air of peremptory self-assurance. He unself-consciously enjoys his place in the plutocracy. During a tour of the Lake Tahoe manse he and Jan, 63, call Glen Eagle, he showed me his red Ferrari, his private theater and the two 32-ft. totem poles just inside the entry. They are made from cedar at least 750 years old and feature carvings of the Davidsons and their three kids, who are now grown. Bob sees his work for the gifted as akin to the patronage that sustained the artists and inventors of the Renaissance. His view of giftedness is expressed through simple analogies: Educators often "want people to have equal results. But that's not likely in our world. You know, I would love to be equal to Michael Jordan in my basketball talents, but somehow I never will be."

But such an uncomplicated view of intelligence--one that esteems IQ scores and raw mental power--has had at least one awkward consequence for the Davidson Academy: it doesn't mirror America. Twenty-six of the 45 students are boys; only two are black. (A total of 16 are minorities.) The school is unlikely ever to represent girls and African Americans proportionately because of a reality about IQ tests: more boys score at the high end of the IQ scale (and, it should be said, more score at the low end; girls' IQ variance is smaller). And for reasons that no one understands, African Americans' IQ scores have tended to cluster about a standard deviation below the average--evidence for some that the tests themselves are biased.

Not everyone at the academy embraces a strict IQ-based definition of giftedness. Its curriculum director, Robert Schultz, emphasizes the importance of interpersonal skills, passion and tenacity in long-term success. Still, the Davidsons point out, correctly, that they are serving an underserved population, kids whose high IQs can make them outcasts. The academy provides a home for them and also functions to check their self-regard since they finally compete day to day with kids who are just as bright. Because everyone at Davidson performs so well, says Claire Evans, 12, "other kids can't say, 'Well, I'm better than you because I did this good.' I did that good too!" (Of course, being labeled prodigies in stories like this one probably inflates them, but researchers have found that outside labeling has less effect on your self-concept than where you fit in with peers you see every day.) Going to Davidson has been an adjustment for kids used to "being on the top of the pile," in the words of Colleen Harsin, 36, the academy's director. Harsin has heard Davidsonians arrive at difficult realizations: "I'm not as smart as I thought I was." "Somebody's better at math than I am. That's never happened."

A NEW ISOLATION?

NO MATTER THEIR IQS, THESE ARE STILL KIDS on the rocky promontory of adolescence. Hormones crackle; tempers rise. The boys shove; the girls gossip; a kid hits another kid during volleyball. "They are O.K. with the team sports, but this is a group that really loves the individual sports--the rock climbing was a big hit," says Kathy Dohr, the gym teacher. You do get the sense sometimes that the Davidson students are alone together. An older boy who says he was beaten up at other schools told me, "I can't say I have many friends here, but I'm not hated ... The school does tend to be pretty much sort of cliquish."

The academy has been good for Annalisee Brasil, even though dividing into two households has been expensive and stressful for the Brasils. She has made friends at the academy and at the university, where this summer she completed a precalculus course so that she can take college calculus in the fall. She has also developed an interest in biochemistry. Socially, Annalisee is finally learning to get along with others in a close-knit setting. "It's been interesting having to deal with that and getting used to, you know, the judgments of other kids," she told me in February. "We get into arguments a lot, because we're all really smart people with opinions, and it doesn't always turn out that great. Sometimes I take things a little too personally. You know, I'm the typical sensitive artist, unfortunately."

The Davidson kids feel less isolated, but have the Davidsons simply created another kind of isolation for their students? When I asked curriculum director Schultz this question, he replied in an e-mail that schools can nurture traits like "civic virtue and community development." And he warned of the alternative: "Essentially these individuals are left to their own devices [in regular schools] and really struggle to find a space for themselves ... Some successfully traverse society's pitfalls (for instance, Albert Einstein); others are less successful (for instance, Theodore Kaczynski). In either case, unless performance was noted as deficient (in Einstein's case, he was believed to be a mute) via school personnel, schools did nothing to provide services. This continues today."

But there is something to be said for being left to one's own devices and learning to cope in difficult surroundings. Einstein is a good example: it's a myth that Einstein failed math, but he hated his Munich school, the Luitpold Gymnasium. Like many other gifted kids, he chafed at authority. "The teachers at the elementary school seemed to me like drill sergeants, and the teachers at the gymnasium are like lieutenants," he later said. Einstein was encouraged to leave the school, and he did so at 15. He didn't need a coddling academy to do O.K. later on.

That's not to say the best approach is a cold Dickensian bed. But Einstein's experience does suggest a middle course between moving to Reno for an élite new school and striking out alone at age 15. Currently, gifted programs too often admit marginal, hardworking kids and then mostly assign field trips and extra essays, not truly accelerated course work pegged to a student's abilities. Ideally, school systems should strive to keep their most talented students through a combination of grade skipping and other approaches (dual enrollment in community colleges, telescoping classwork without grade skipping) that ensure they won't drop out or feel driven away to Nevada. The best way to treat the Annalisee Brasils of the world is to let them grow up in their own communities--by allowing them to skip ahead at their own pace. We shouldn't be so wary of those who can move a lot faster than the rest of us. *

Israel urged US to attack Iran - not Iraq

2007-08-30T06:40:00.000-05:00

Israel urged US to attack Iran - not Iraq
Asia Times, Aug 30, 2007
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Israeli officials warned the George W Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to the region and urged the United States instead to target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former Bush administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.

Wilkerson, then a member of the US State Department's policy planning staff and later chief of staff for secretary of state Colin Powell, recalled in an interview that the Israelis reactedimmediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, said Wilkerson, "The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy - Iran is the enemy."

Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilize the balance of power, do it against the main enemy."

The warning against an invasion of Iraq was "pervasive" in Israeli communications with the US administration, Wilkerson recalled. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence, and private citizens.

Wilkerson noted that the main point of their communications was not that the US should immediately attack Iran, but that "it should not be distracted by Iraq and Saddam Hussein" from a focus on the threat from Iran.

The Israeli advice against using military force against Iraq was apparently triggered by reports reaching Israeli officials in December 2001 that the Bush administration was beginning serious planning for an attack on Iraq. Journalist Bob Woodward revealed in Plan of Attack that on December 1, 2001, secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld had ordered the Central Command chief, General Tommy Franks, to come up with the first formal briefing on a new war plan for Iraq on December 4. That started a period of intense discussions of war planning between Rumsfeld and Franks.

Soon after Israeli officials got wind of that planning, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon asked for a meeting with Bush primarily to discuss US intentions to invade Iraq. In the weeks preceding Sharon's meeting with Bush on February 7, 2002, a procession of Israeli officials conveyed the message to the US administration that Iran represented a greater threat, according to a Washington Post report on the eve of the meeting.

Israeli defense minister Fouad Ben-Eliezer, who was visiting Washington with Sharon, revealed the essence of the strategic differences between Jerusalem and Washington over military force. He was quoted by the Post as saying, "Today, everybody is busy with Iraq. Iraq is a problem ... But you should understand, if you ask me, today Iran is more dangerous than Iraq."

Sharon, who was incapacitated by a stroke last year, never revealed publicly what he said to Bush in the February 7 meeting. But Yossi Alpher, a former adviser to prime minister Ehud Barak, wrote in an article in The Forward last January that Sharon advised Bush not to occupy Iraq, according to a knowledgeable source. Alpher wrote that Sharon also assured Bush that Israel would not "push one way or another" regarding his plan to take down Saddam.

Alpher noted that Washington did not want public support by Israel and in fact requested that Israel refrain from openly supporting the invasion in order to avoid an automatic negative reaction from Iraq's Arab neighbors.

After that meeting, the Sharon government generally remained silent on the issue of an invasion of Iraq. A notable exception, however, was a statement on August 16, 2002, by Ranaan Gissin, an aide to Sharon. Ranaan declared, "Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose. It will only give [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

As late as October 2002, however, there were still signs of continuing Israeli grumbling about the Bush administration's obsession with taking over Iraq. Both the Israel Defense Forces' chief of staff and its chief of military intelligence made public statements that month implicitly dismissing the Bush administration's position that Saddam's alleged quest for nuclear weapons made him the main threat. Both officials suggested that Israel's military advantage over Iraq had continued to increase over the decade since the Gulf War as Iraq had grown weaker.

The Israeli chief of military intelligence, Major-General Aharon Farkash, said Iraq had not deployed any missiles that could strike Israel directly and challenged the Bush administration's argument that Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons within a relatively short time. He gave an interview to Israeli television in which he said army intelligence had concluded that Iraq could not have nuclear weapons in less than four years. He insisted that Iran was as much of a nuclear threat as Iraq.

Israeli strategists generally believed that taking down the Saddam Hussein regime could further upset an Iran-Iraq power balance that had already tilted in favor of Iran after the US defeat of Saddam's army in the 1991 Gulf War. By 1996, however, neo-conservatives with ties to the Likud Party in Israel were beginning to argue for a more aggressive joint US-Israeli strategy aimed at a "rollback" of all of Israel's enemies in the region, including Iran, but beginning by taking down Saddam and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there.

That was the thrust of the 1996 report of a task force led by Richard Perle for the right-wing Israeli think-tank the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, and aimed at the Likud prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But most strategists in the Israeli government and the Likud Party - including Sharon himself - did not share that viewpoint. Despite agreement between neo-conservatives and Israeli officials on many issues, the dominant Israeli strategic judgment on the issue of invading Iraq diverged from that of US neo-conservatives because of differing political-military interests.

Israel was more concerned with the relative military threat posed by Iran and Iraq, whereas neo-conservatives in the Bush administration were focused on regime change in Iraq as a low-cost way of leveraging more ambitious changes in the region. From the neo-conservative perspective, the very military weakness of Saddam's Iraq made it the logical target for the use of US military power.

Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012

2007-08-28T16:48:00.000-05:00

Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. is Deputy Judge Advocate General, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. General Dunlap assists the Judge Advocate General in the professional oversight of more than 2,200 judge advocates, 350 civilian attorneys, 1,400 enlisted paralegals and 550 civilians assigned worldwide. In addition to overseeing an array of military justice, operational, international and civil law functions, General Dunlap provides legal advice to the Air Staff and commanders at all levels.
He is a graduate of St. Joseph's University (Pa.), the Villanova University School of Law, and the Armed Forces Staff College, and he is a Distinguished Graduate of the National War College, Class of 1992. He has taught at the Air Force Judge Advocate General's School, and served tours in Korea and the United Kingdom. In 1987 he was a Circuit Military Judge, First Judicial Circuit, and was subsequently assigned to the Air Staff in the Office of the Judge Advocate General. Lieutenant Colonel Dunlap was recently named by the Judge Advocates' Association as the USAF's Outstanding Career Armed Services Attorney of 1992. The present article is adapted from his National War College student paper that was co-winner of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1991-92 Strategy Essay Competition, in which students from all the senior service colleges compete.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012

CHARLES J. DUNLAP, JR.

From Parameters, Winter 1992-93, pp. 2-20.

Go to Cumulative Article Index.

The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.

It goes without saying (I hope) that the coup scenario above is purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction. -- The Author

Dear Old Friend,

It's hard to believe that 20 years have passed since we graduated from the War College! Remember the great discussions, the trips, the parties, the people? Those were the days!!! I'm not having quite as much fun anymore. You've heard about the Sedition Trials? Yeah, I was one of those arrested--convicted of "disloyal statements," and "using contemptuous language towards officials." Disloyal? No. Contemptuous? You bet! With General Brutus in charge it's not hard to be contemptuous.

I've got to hand it to Brutus, he's ingenious. After the President died he somehow "persuaded" the Vice President not to take the oath of office. Did we then have a President or not? A real "Constitutional Conundrum" the papers called it.[1] Brutus created just enough ambiguity to convince everyone that as the senior military officer, he could--and should--declare himself Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces. Remember what he said? "Had to fill the power vacuum." And Brutus showed he really knew how to use power: he declared martial law, "postponed" the elections, got the Vice President to "retire," and even moved into the White House! "More efficient to work from there," he said. Remember that?

When Congress convened that last time and managed to pass the Referendum Act, I really got my hopes up. But when the Referendum approved Brutus's takeover, I knew we were in serious trouble. I caused a ruckus, you know, trying to organize a protest. Then the Security Forces picked me up. My quickie "trial" was a joke. The sentence? Well, let's just say you won't have to save any beer for me at next year's reunion. Since it doesn't look like I'll be seeing you again, I thought I'd write everything down and try to get it to you.

I am calling my paper the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." I think it's important to get the truth recorded before they rewrite history. If we're ever going to get our freedom back, we've got to understand how we got into this mess. People need to understand that the armed forces exist to support and defend government, not to be the government. Faced with intractable national problems on one hand, and an energetic and capable military on the other, it can be all too seductive to start viewing the military as a cost-effective solution. We made a terrible mistake when we allowed the armed forces to be diverted from their original purpose.

I found a box of my notes and clippings from our War College days--told my keepers I needed them to write the confession they want. It's amazing; looking through these old papers makes me realize that even back in 1992 we should have seen this coming. The seeds of this outrage were all there; we just didn't realize how they would grow. But isn't that always the way with things like this? Somebody once said that "the true watersheds in human affairs are seldom spotted amid the tumult of headlines broadcast on the hour."[2] And we had a lot of headlines back in the '90s to distract us: The economy was in the dumps, crime was rising, schools were deteriorating, drug use was rampant, the environment was in trouble, and political scandals were occurring almost daily. Still, there was some good news: the end of the Cold War as well as America's recent victory over Iraq.

All of this and more contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves today: a military that controls government and one that, ironically, can't fight. It wasn't any single cause that led us to this point. Instead, it was a combination of several different developments, the beginnings of which were evident in 1992. Here's what I think happened:

Americans became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent inability of elected government to solve the nation's dilemmas. We were looking for someone or something that could produce workable answers. The one institution of government in which the people retained faith was the military. Buoyed by the military's obvious competence in the First Gulf War, the public increasingly turned to it for solutions to the country's problems. Americans called for an acceleration of trends begun in the 1980s: tasking the military with a variety of new, nontraditional missions, and vastly escalating its commitment to formerly ancillary duties.

Though not obvious at the time, the cumulative effect of these new responsibilities was to incorporate the military into the political process to an unprecedented degree. These additional assignments also had the perverse effect of diverting focus and resources from the military's central mission of combat training and warfighting. Finally, organizational, political, and societal changes served to alter the American military's culture. Today's military is not the one we knew when we graduated from the War College.

Let me explain how I came to these conclusions. In 1992 not very many people would've thought a military coup d'etat could ever happen here. Sure, there were eccentric conspiracy theorists who saw the Pentagon's hand in the assassination of President Kennedy,[3] President Nixon's downfall,[4] and similar events. But even the most avid believers had to admit that no outright military takeover had ever occurred before now. Heeding Washington's admonitions in his Farewell address about the dangers of overgrown military establishments,[5] Americans generally viewed their armed forces with a judicious mixture of respect and wariness.[6] For over two centuries that vigilance was rewarded, and most Americans came to consider the very notion of a military coup preposterous. Historian Andrew Janos captured the conventional view of the latter half of the 20th century in this clipping I saved:

A coup d'etat in the United States would be too fantastic to contemplate, not only because few would actually entertain the idea, but also because the bulk of the people are strongly attached to the prevailing political system and would rise in defense of a political leader even though they might not like him. The environment most hospitable to coups d'etat is one in which political apathy prevails as the dominant style.[7]
However, when Janos wrote that back in 1964, 61.9 percent of the electorate voted. Since then voter participation has steadily declined. By 1988 only 50.1 percent of the eligible voters cast a ballot.[8] Simple extrapolation of those numbers to last spring's Referendum would have predicted almost exactly the turnout. It was precisely reversed from that of 1964: 61.9 percent of the electorate did not vote.

America's societal malaise was readily apparent in 1992. Seventy-eight percent of Americans believed the country was on the "wrong track." One researcher declared that social indicators were at their lowest level in 20 years and insisted "something [was] coming loose in the social infrastructure." The nation was frustrated and angry about its problems.[9]

America wanted solutions and democratically elected government wasn't providing them.[10] The country suffered from a "deep pessimism about politicians and government after years of broken promises."[11] David Finkle observed in The Washington Post Magazine that for most Americans "the perception of government is that it has evolved from something that provides democracy's framework into something that provides obstacles, from something to celebrate into something to ignore." Likewise, politicians and their proposals seemed stale and repetitive. Millions of voters gave up hope of finding answers.[12] The "environment of apathy" Janos characterized as a precursor to a coup had arrived.

Unlike the rest of government the military enjoyed a remarkably steady climb in popularity throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.[13] And indeed it had earned the admiration of the public. Debilitated by the Vietnam War, the US military set about reinventing itself. As early as 1988 U.S. News & World Report heralded the result: "In contrast to the dispirited, drug-ravaged, do-your-own-thing armed services of the '70s and early '80s, the US military has been transformed into a fighting force of gung-ho attitude, spit-shined discipline, and ten-hut morale."[14] After the US military dealt Iraq a crushing defeat in the First Gulf War, the ignominy of Vietnam evaporated.

When we graduated from the War College in 1992, the armed forces were the smartest, best educated, and best disciplined force in history.[15] While polls showed that the public invariably gave Congress low marks, a February 1991 survey disclosed that "public confidence in the military soar[ed] to 85 percent, far surpassing every other institution in our society." The armed forces had become America's most--and perhaps only--trusted arm of government.[16]

Assumptions about the role of the military in society also began to change. Twenty years before we graduated, the Supreme Court confidently declared in Laird v. Tatum that Americans had a "traditional and strong resistance to any military intrusion into civilian affairs."[17] But Americans were now rethinking the desirability and necessity of that resistance. They compared the military's principled competence with the chicanery and ineptitude of many elected officials, and found the latter wanting.[18]

Commentator James Fallows expressed the new thinking in an August 1991 article in Atlantic magazine. Musing on the contributions of the military to American society, Fallows wrote: "I am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything worthwhile is to invent a security threat and turn the job over to the military." He elaborated on his reasoning:

According to our economic and political theories, most agencies of the government have no special standing to speak about the general national welfare. Each represents a certain constituency; the interest groups fight it out. The military, strangely, is the one government institution that has been assigned legitimacy to act on its notion of the collective good. "National defense" can make us do things--train engineers, build highways--that long-term good of the nation or common sense cannot.[19]
About a decade before Fallows' article appeared, Congress initiated the use of "national defense" as a rationale to boost military participation in an activity historically the exclusive domain of civilian government: law enforcement. Congress concluded that the "rising tide of drugs being smuggled into the United States . . . present[ed] a grave threat to all Americans." Finding the performance of civilian law enforcement agencies in counteracting that threat unsatisfactory, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act of 1981.[20] In doing so Congress specifically intended to force reluctant military commanders to actively collaborate in police work.[21]

This was a historic change of policy. Since the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, the military had distanced itself from law enforcement activities.[22] While the 1981 law did retain certain limits on the legal authority of military personnel, its net effect was to dramatically expand military participation in anti-drug efforts.[23] By 1991 the Department of Defense was spending $1.2 billion on counternarcotics crusades. Air Force surveillance aircraft were sent to track airborne smugglers; Navy ships patrolled the Caribbean looking for drug-laden vessels; and National Guardsmen were searching for marijuana caches near the borders.[24] By 1992 "combatting" drug trafficking was formally declared a "high national security mission."[25]

It wasn't too long before 21st-century legislators were calling for more military involvement in police work.[26] Crime seemed out of control. Most disturbing, the incidence of violent crime continued to climb.[27] Americans were horrified and desperate: a third even believed vigilantism could be justified.[28] Rising lawlessness was seen as but another example of the civilian political leadership's inability to fulfill government's most basic duty to ensure public safety.[29] People once again wanted the military to help.

Hints of an expanded police function were starting to surface while we were still at the War College. For example, District of Columbia National Guardsmen established a regular military presence in high-crime areas.[30] Eventually, people became acclimated to seeing uniformed military personnel patrolling their neighborhood.[31] Now troops are an adjunct to almost all police forces in the country. In many of the areas where much of our burgeoning population of elderly Americans live--Brutus calls them "National Security Zones"--the military is often the only law enforcement agency. Consequently, the military was ideally positioned in thousands of communities to support the coup.

Concern about crime was a major reason why General Brutus's actions were approved in the Referendum. Although voter participation by the general public was low, older Americans voted at a much higher rate.[32] Furthermore, with the aging of the baby boom generation, the block of American voters over 45 grew to almost 53 percent of the voters by 2010.[33] This wealthy,[34] older electorate welcomed an organization which could ensure their physical security.[35] When it counted, they backed Brutus in the Referendum--probably the last votes they'll ever cast.

The military's constituency was larger than just the aged. Poor Americans of all ages became dependent upon the military not only for protection against crime, but also for medical care. Again we saw the roots of this back in 1992. First it was the barely defeated proposal to use veterans' hospitals to provide care for the non-veteran poor.[36] Next were calls to deploy military medical assets to relieve hard-pressed urban hospitals.[37] As the number of uninsured and underinsured grew, the pressure to provide care became inexorable. Now military hospitals serve millions of new, non-military patients. Similarly, a proposal to use so-called "underutilized" military bases as drug rehabilitation centers was implemented on a massive scale.[38]

Even the youngest citizens were co-opted. During the 1990s the public became aware that military officers had the math and science backgrounds desperately needed to revitalize US education.[39] In fact, programs involving military personnel were already underway while we were at the War College.[40] We now have an entire generation of young people who have grown up comfortable with the sight of military personnel patrolling their streets and teaching in their classrooms.

As you know, it wasn't just crises in public safety, medical care, and education that the military was tasked to mend. The military was also called upon to manage the cleanup of the nation's environmental hazards. By 1992 the armed services were deeply involved in this arena, and that involvement mushroomed. Once the military demonstrated its expertise, it wasn't long before environmental problems were declared "national security threats" and full responsibility devolved to the armed forces.[41]

Other problems were transformed into "national security" issues. As more commercial airlines went bankrupt and unprofitable air routes dropped, the military was called upon to provide "essential" air transport to the affected regions. In the name of national defense, the military next found itself in the sealift business. Ships purchased by the military for contingencies were leased, complete with military crews, at low rates to US exporters to help solve the trade deficit.[42] The nation's crumbling infrastructure was also declared a "national security threat." As was proposed back in 1991, troops rehabilitated public housing, rebuilt bridges and roads, and constructed new government buildings. By late 1992, voices in both Congress and the military had reached a crescendo calling for military involvement across a broad spectrum of heretofore purely civilian activities.[43] Soon, it became common in practically every community to see crews of soldiers working on local projects.[44] Military attire drew no stares.

The revised charter for the armed forces was not confined to domestic enterprises. Overseas humanitarian and nation-building assignments proliferated.[45] Though these projects have always been performed by the military on an ad hoc basis, in 1986 Congress formalized that process. It declared overseas humanitarian and civic assistance activities to be "valid military missions" and specifically authorized them by law.[46] Fueled by favorable press for operations in Iraq, Bangladesh, and the Philippines during the early 1990s, humanitarian missions were touted as the military's "model for the future."[47] That prediction came true. When several African governments collapsed under AIDS epidemics and famines around the turn of the century, US troops--first introduced to the continent in the 1990s--were called upon to restore basic services. They never left.[48] Now the US military constitutes the de facto government in many of those areas. Once again, the first whisperings of such duties could be heard in 1992.[49]

By the year 2000 the armed forces had penetrated many vital aspects of American society. More and more military officers sought the kind of autonomy in these civilian affairs that they would expect from their military superiors in the execution of traditional combat operations. Thus began the inevitable politicization of the military. With so much responsibility for virtually everything government was expected to do, the military increasingly demanded a larger role in policymaking. But in a democracy policymaking is a task best left to those accountable to the electorate. Nonetheless, well- intentioned military officers, accustomed to the ordered, hierarchical structure of military society, became impatient with the delays and inefficiencies inherent in the democratic process. Consequently, they increasingly sought to avoid it. They convinced themselves that they could more productively serve the nation in carrying out their new assignments if they accrued to themselves unfettered power to implement their programs. They forgot Lord Acton's warning that "all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."[50]

Congress became their unwitting ally. Because of the popularity of the new military programs--and the growing dependence upon them--Congress passed the Military Plenipotentiary Act of 2005. This legislation was the legacy of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Among many revisions, Goldwater-Nichols strengthened the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and mandated numerous changes intended to increase "jointness" in the armed services.[51] Supporters of the Military Plenipotentiary Act argued that unity of command was critical to the successful management of the numerous activities now considered "military" operations. Moreover, many Congressmen mistakenly believed that Goldwater-Nichols was one of the main reasons for the military's success in the First Gulf War.[52] They viewed the Military Plenipotentiary Act as an enhancement of the strengths of Goldwater-Nichols.

In passing this legislation Congress added greater authority to the military's top leadership position. Lulled by favorable experiences with Chairmen like General Colin Powell,[53] Congress saw little danger in converting the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff into the even more powerful Military Plenipotentiary. No longer merely an advisor, the Military Plenipotentiary became a true commander of all US services, purportedly because that status could better ameliorate the effects of perceived interservice squabbling. Despite warnings found in the legislative history of Goldwater-Nichols and elsewhere, enormous power was concentrated in the hands of a single, unelected official.[54] Unfortunately, Congress presumed that principled people would always occupy the office.[55] No one expected a General Brutus would arise.

The Military Plenipotentiary was not Congress's only structural change in military governance. By 2007 the services were combined to form the Unified Armed Forces. Recall that when we graduated from the War College greater unification was being seriously suggested as an economy measure.[56] Eventually that consideration, and the conviction that "jointness" was an unqualified military virtue,[57] led to unification. But unification ended the creative tension between the services.[58] Besides rejecting the operational logic of separate services,[59] no one seemed to recognize the checks-and-balances function that service separatism provided a democracy obliged to maintain a large, professional military establishment. The Founding Fathers knew the importance of checks and balances in controlling the agencies of government: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. . . . Experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary controls . . . [including] supplying opposite and rival interests."[60]

Ambition is a natural trait of military organizations and their leaders.[61] Whatever might have been the inefficiencies of separate military services, their very existence served to counteract the untoward desires of any single service. The roles and missions debates and other arguments, once seen as petty military infighting, also provided an invaluable forum for competitive analysis of military doctrine. Additionally, they served to ensure that unscrupulous designs by a segment of the military establishment were ruthlessly exposed. Once the services were unified, the impetus to do so vanished, and the authority of the military in relation to the other institutions of government rose.[62] Distended by its pervasive new duties, monolithic militarism came to dominate the Darwinian political environment of 21st-century America.

Why did the uniformed leadership of our day acquiesce to this transformation of the military? Much of the answer can be traced to the budget showdowns of the early 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union left the US military without an easily articulated rationale for large defense budgets. Billions in cuts were sought. Journalist Bruce Auster put it bluntly: "Winning a share of the budget wars . . . require[s] that the military find new missions for a post-Cold War world that is devoid of clear military threats."[63] Capitulating, military leaders embraced formerly disdained assignments. As one commentator cynically observed, "the services are eager to talk up nontraditional, budget-justifying roles."[64] The Vietnam-era aphorism, "It's a lousy war, but it's the only one we've got," was resuscitated.

Still, that doesn't completely explain why in 2012 the military leadership would succumb to a coup. To answer that question fully requires examination of what was happening to the officer corps as the military drew down in the 1980s and 1990s. Ever since large peacetime military establishments became permanent features after World War II, the great leveler of the officer corps was the constant influx of officers from the Reserve Officers Training Corps program. The product of diverse colleges and universities throughout the United States, these officers were a vital source of liberalism in the military services.[65]

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, that was changing. Force reductions decreased the number of ROTC graduates the services accepted.[66] Although General Powell called ROTC "vital to democracy," 62 ROTC programs were closed in 1991 and another 350 were considered for closure.[67] The numbers of officers produced by the service academies also fell, but at a significantly slower pace. Consequently, the proportion of academy graduates in the officer corps climbed.[68] Academy graduates, along with graduates of such military schools as the Citadel, Virginia Military Institute, and Norwich University, tended to feel a greater homogeneity of outlook than, say, the pool of ROTC graduates at large, with the result that as the proportion of such graduates grew, diversity of outlook overall diminished to some degree.

Moreover, the ROTC officers that did remain increasingly came from a narrower range of schools. Focusing on the military's policy to exclude homosexuals from service, advocates of "political correctness" succeeded in driving ROTC from the campuses of some of our best universities.[69] In many instances they also prevailed in barring military recruiters from campus.[70] Little thought was given the long-term consequences of limiting the pool from which our military leadership was drawn. The result was a much more uniformly oriented military elite whose outlook was progressively conservative.

Furthermore, well-meaning attempts at improving service life led to the unintended insularity of military society, representing a return to the cloistered life of the pre-World War II armed forces. Military bases, complete with schools, churches, stores, child care centers, and recreational areas, became never-to-be-left islands of tranquillity removed from the chaotic, crime-ridden environment outside the gates.[71] As one reporter put it in 1991: "Increasingly isolated from mainstream America, today's troops tend to view the civilian world with suspicion and sometimes hostility."[72] Thus, a physically isolated and intellectually alienated officer corps was paired with an enlisted force likewise distanced from the society it was supposed to serve. In short, the military evolved into a force susceptible to manipulation by an authoritarian leader from its own select ranks.

What made this all the more disheartening was the wretched performance of our forces in the Second Gulf War.[73] Consumed with ancillary and nontraditional missions, the military neglected its fundamental raison d'etre. As the Supreme Court succinctly put it more than a half century ago, the "primary business of armies and navies [is] to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise."[74] When Iranian armies started pouring into the lower Gulf states in 2010, the US armed forces were ready to do anything but fight.

Preoccupation with humanitarian duties, narcotics interdiction, and all the rest of the peripheral missions left the military unfit to engage an authentic military opponent. Performing the new missions sapped resources from what most experts agree was one of the vital ingredients to victory in the First Gulf War: training. Training is, quite literally, a zero-sum game. Each moment spent performing a nontraditional mission is one unavailable for orthodox military exercises. We should have recognized the grave risk. In 1991 The Washington Post reported that in "interview after interview across the services, senior leaders and noncommissioned officers stressed that they cannot be ready to fight without frequent rehearsals of perishable skills."[75]

The military's anti-drug activities were a big part of the problem. Oh sure, I remember the facile claims of exponents of the military's counternarcotics involvement as to what "valuable" training it provided.[76] Did anyone really think that crew members of an AWACS--an aircraft designed to track high-performance military aircraft in combat--significantly improved their skills by hours of tracking slow-moving light planes? Did they seriously imagine that troops enhanced combat skills by looking for marijuana under car seats? Did they truly believe that crews of the Navy's sophisticated antiair and anti-submarine ships received meaningful training by following lumbering trawlers around the Caribbean?[77] Tragically, they did.

The problem was exacerbated when political pressures exempted the Guard and the Reserves from the harshest effects of the budgetary cutbacks of the early 1990s.[78] The First Gulf War demonstrated that modern weapons and tactics were simply too complex for part-time soldiers to master during their allotted drill periods, however well motivated.[79] Still, creative Guard and Reserve defenders contrived numerous civic-action and humanitarian assignments and sold them as "training." Left unexplained was how such training was supposed to fit with military strategies that contemplated short, violent, come-as-you-are expeditionary wars.[80] Nice-to-have Guard and Reserve support-oriented programs prevailed at the expense of critical active-duty combat capabilities.[81]

Perhaps even more damaging than the diversion of resources was the assault on the very ethos of military service. Rather than bearing in mind the Supreme Court's admonition to focus on warfighting, the military was told to alter its purpose. Former Secretary of State James Baker typified the trendy new tone in remarks about the military's airlift of food and medicine to the former Soviet republics in early 1992. He said the airlift would "vividly show the peoples of the former Soviet Union that those that once prepared for war with them now have the courage and the conviction to use their militaries to say, `We will wage a new peace.'"[82]

In truth militaries ought to "prepare for war" and leave the "peace waging" to those agencies of government whose mission is just that. Nevertheless, such pronouncements--seconded by military leaders[83]--became the fashionable philosophy. The result? People in the military no longer considered themselves warriors. Instead, they perceived themselves as policemen, relief workers, educators, builders, health care providers, politicians--everything but warfighters. When these philanthropists met the Iranian 10th Armored Corps near Daharan during the Second Gulf War, they were brutally slaughtered by a military which had not forgotten what militaries were supposed to do or what war is really all about.

The devastation of the military's martial spirit was exemplified by its involvement in police activities. Inexplicably, we ignored the deleterious effect on combat motivation suffered by the Israeli Defense Forces as a result of their efforts to police the West Bank and Gaza.[84] Few seemed to appreciate the fundamental difference between the police profession and the profession of arms. As Richard J. Barnet observed in The New Yorker, "The line between police action and a military operation is real. Police derive their power from their acceptance as `officers of the law'; legitimate authority, not firepower, is the essential element."[85]

Police organizations are understandably oriented toward the studied restraint necessary for the end sought: a judicial conviction. As one Drug Enforcement Administration agent noted: "The military can kill people better than we can [but] when we go to a jungle lab, we're not there to move onto the target by fire and maneuver to destroy the enemy. We're there to arrest suspects and seize evidence."[86] If military forces are inculcated with the same spirit of restraint, combat performance is threatened.[87] Moreover, law enforcement is also not just a form of low-intensity conflict. In low-intensity conflict, the military aim is to win the will of the people, a virtually impossible task with criminals "motivated by money, not ideology."[88]

Humanitarian missions likewise undermined the military's sense of itself. As one Navy officer gushed during the 1991 Bangladesh relief operation, "It's great to be here doing the opposite of a soldier."[89] While no true soldier relishes war, the fact remains that the essence of the military is warfighting and preparation for the same. What journalist Barton Gellman has said of the Army can be extrapolated to the military as a whole: it is an "organization whose fighting spirit depends . . . heavily on tradition."[90] If that tradition becomes imbued with a preference for "doing the opposite of a soldier," fighting spirit is bound to suffer. When we first heard editorial calls to "pacify the military" by involving it in civic projects,[91] we should have given them the forceful rebuke they deserved.

Military analyst Harry Summers warned back in '91 that when militaries lose sight of their purpose, catastrophe results. Citing a study of pre-World War II Canadian military policy as it related to the subsequent battlefield disasters, he observed that

instead of using the peacetime interregnum to hone their military skills, senior Canadian military officers sought out civilian missions to justify their existence. When war came they were woefully unprepared. Instead of protecting their soldiers' lives they led them to their deaths. In today's post-Cold War peacetime environment, this trap again looms large. . . . Some today within the US military are also searching for relevance, with draft doctrinal manuals giving touchy-feely prewar and postwar civil operations equal weight with warfighting. This is an insidious mistake.[92]
We must remember that America's position at the end of the Cold War had no historical precedent. For the first time the nation--in peacetime--found itself with a still-sizable, professional military establishment that was not preoccupied with an overarching external threat.[93] Yet the uncertainties in the aftermath of the Cold War limited the extent to which those forces could be safely downsized. When the military was then obliged to engage in a bewildering array of nontraditional duties to further justify its existence, it is little wonder that its traditional apolitical professionalism eventually eroded.

Clearly, the curious tapestry of military authoritarianism and combat ineffectiveness that we see today was not yet woven in 1992. But the threads were there. Knowing what I know now, here's the advice I would have given the War College Class of 1992 had I been their graduation speaker:

Demand that the armed forces focus exclusively on indisputably military duties. We must not diffuse our energies away from our fundamental responsibility for warfighting. To send ill-trained troops into combat makes us accomplices to murder.
Acknowledge that national security does have economic, social, educational, and environmental dimensions, but insist that this doesn't necessarily mean the problems in those areas are the responsibility of the military to correct. Stylishly designating efforts to solve national ills as "wars" doesn't convert them into something appropriate for the employment of military forces.
Readily cede budgetary resources to those agencies whose business it is to address the non-military issues the armed forces are presently asked to fix. We are not the DEA, EPA, Peace Corps, Department of Education, or Red Cross--nor should we be. It has never been easy to give up resources, but in the long term we--and the nation--will be better served by a smaller but appropriately focused military.
Divest the defense budget of perception-skewing expenses. Narcotics interdiction, environmental cleanup, humanitarian relief, and other costs tangential to actual combat capability should be assigned to the budgets of DEA, EPA, State, and so forth. As long as these expensive programs are hidden in the defense budget, the taxpayer understandably--but mistakenly--will continue to believe he's buying military readiness.
Continue to press for the elimination of superfluous, resource-draining Guard and Reserve units. Increase the training tempo, responsibilities, and compensation of those that remain.
Educate the public to the sophisticated training requirements occasioned by the complexities of modern warfare. It's imperative we rid the public of the misperception that soldiers in peacetime are essentially unemployed and therefore free to assume new missions.[94]
Resist unification of the services not only on operational grounds, but also because unification would be inimical to the checks and balances that underpin democratic government. Slow the pace of fiscally driven consolidation so that the impact on less quantifiable aspects of military effectiveness can be scrutinized.
Assure that officer accessions from the service academies correspond with overall force reductions (but maintain separate service academies) and keep ROTC on a wide diversity of campuses. If necessary, resort to litigation to maintain ROTC campus diversity.
Orient recruiting resources and campaigns toward ensuring that all echelons of society are represented in the military, without compromising standards.[95] Accept that this kind of recruiting may increase costs. It's worth it.
Work to moderate the base-as-an-island syndrome by providing improved incentives for military members and families to assimilate into civilian communities. Within the information programs for our force of all-volunteer professionals (increasingly US-based), strengthen the emphasis upon such themes as the inviolability of the Constitution, ascendancy of our civilian leadership over the military, and citizens' responsibilities.
Finally, I would tell our classmates that democracy is a fragile institution that must be continuously nurtured and scrupulously protected. I would also tell them that they must speak out when they see the institution threatened; indeed, it is their duty to do so. Richard Gabriel aptly observed in his book To Serve with Honor that

when one discusses dissent, loyalty, and the limits of military obligations, the central problem is that the military represents a threat to civil order not because it will usurp authority, but because it does not speak out on critical policy decisions. The soldier fails to live up to his oath to serve the country if he does not speak out when he sees his civilian or military superiors executing policies he feels to be wrong.[96]
Gabriel was wrong when he dismissed the military's potential to threaten civil order, but he was right when he described our responsibilities. The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It's too late for me to do any more. But it's not for you.

Best regards,
Prisoner 222305759

NOTES

1. The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that in the case of "death . . . the Vice President shall become the President." But Section 1 of Article II requires the taking of the oath before "enter[ing] the Execution of his Office."

2. Daniel J. Boorstin, "History's Hidden Turning Points," U.S. News & World Report, 22 April 1991, p. 52.

3. Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, is one example. See Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. Facts," The Washington Post, 28 February 1992, p. C5.

4. See Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, Silent Coup (New York: St. Martin's, 1991).

5. George Washington in his "Farewell Address" dated 19 September 1796 counseled: "Overgrown military establishments . . . under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty and . . . are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." As quoted in The Annals of America (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976), p. 609.

6. Author Geoffrey Perret expressed the traditional view as follows: "The antimilitaristic side of the American character is forever on guard. Americans are so suspicious of military ambition that even when the armed forces win wars they are criticized as robustly as if they had lost them." A Country Made By War (New York: Vintage, 1989), p. 560.

7. Andrew C. Janos, "The Seizure of Power: A Study of Force and Popular Consent," Research Monograph No. 16, Center for International Studies, Princeton University, 1964, p. 39.

8. Mark S. Hoffman, ed., The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1991 (New York: Pharo Books, 1990), p. 426; Royce Crocker, Voter Registration and Turnout 1948-1988, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service Report No. 89-179 (Washington: LOC, 1989), p. 11.

9. E. J. Dionne, Jr., "Altered States: The Union & the Campaign," The Washington Post, 26 January 1992, p. C1. Fordham University researcher Marc Miringoff reports that the Index of Social Indicators fell to its lowest point in 20 years. He describes the Index, which is an amalgamation of social and economic data from government sources, as "sort of a Dow Jones of the national soul." See Paul Taylor, "`Dow Jones of the National Soul' Sours," The Washington Post, 16 January 1992, p. A25. The nation's frustration was the cause, according to columnist George F. Will, of a rising level of collective "national stress." George F. Will, "Stressed Out in America," The Washington Post, 16 January 1992, p. A27. See also Charles Krauthammer, "America's Case of the Sulks," The Washington Post, 19 January 1992, p. C7.

10. A 1989 Harris poll revealed that 53% of Americans believed that Congress was not effectively fulfilling its responsibilities. See Robert R. Ivany, "Soldiers and Legislators: Common Mission," Parameters, 21 (Spring 1991), 47.

11. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, "Behind Our Loss of Faith," U.S. News & World Report, 16 March 1992, p. 76. Many believed that democracy's promise didn't include them. Ninety-one percent of Americans reported that the "group with too little influence in government is people like themselves." See "Harper's Index," Harper's Magazine, January 1991, p. 17.

12. David Finkle, "The Greatest Democracy on Earth," The Washington Post Magazine, 16 February 1992, p. 16. Forty-three percent of those who failed to vote didn't see any important differences between the two major parties. See "Harper's Index," Harper's Magazine, March 1992, p. 13. One in eight Americans was so pessimistic as to conclude that the country's domestic problems were "beyond solving." "Harper's Index," Harper's Magazine, October 1991, p. 15.

13. A ten-year rise in public confidence was reported by Tom Morganthau, et al., in "The Military's New Image," Newsweek, 11 March 1991, p. 50.

14. Michael Satchell, et al., "The Military's New Stars," U.S. News & World Report, 18 April 1988, p. 33.

15. A survey of 163 new Army brigadier generals revealed that their IQ was in the 92nd percentile of the population. See Bruce W. Nelan, "Revolution in Defense," Time, 18 March 1991, p. 25. In many instances the curricula vitae of military personnel was more impressive than that of their civilian counterparts. For example, over 88% of brigadier generals had an advanced degree compared with 19% of top civilian business leaders. See David Gergen, "America's New Heroes," U.S. News & World Report, 11 February 1991, p. 76. Similarly, 97% of enlisted personnel were high school graduates, the highest percentage ever. See Grant Willis, "DoD: Recruits in '91 Best Educated, Most Qualified," Air Force Times, 27 January 1992, p. 14. The services "had become practically a drug-free workplace." See David Gergen, "Bringing Home the Storm," The Washington Post, 28 April 1991, p. C2. Military sociologist Charles Moskos explained that the reason for the great decline in disciplinary problems is "simply better recruits." Peter Slavin, "Telling It Like It Is," Air Force Times, 14 March 1988, p. 60.

16. Ivany, 47; David Gergen, "America's New Heroes," p. 76; Grant Willis, "A New Generation of Warriors," Navy Times, 16 March 1991, p. 12.

17. 408 U.S. 1, 17 (1972).

18. At least one observer sensed the peril which arises when power and respect converge in the military: "Our warriors are kinder and gentler, and have not shown the slightest inclination to lust for political power. But that potential always lurks where power and respect converge, and the degree of military influence in society is something to watch carefully in the years ahead." Martin Anderson, "The Benefits of the Warrior Class," The Baltimore Sun, 14 April 1991, p. 3F.

19. James Fallows, "Military Efficiency," Atlantic, August 1991, p. 18.

20. Civilian law enforcement agencies were intercepting only 15% of the drugs entering the country. See U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1981), p. 1785; Public Law 97-86 (1981) codified in 10 U.S.C. 371 et seq.

21. Newsweek reports: "The Pentagon resisted the [counternarcotics] mission for decades, saying that the military should fight threats to national security, and the police should fight crime." Charles Lane, "The Newest War," Newsweek, 6 January 1992, p. 18. See also U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1981), p. 1785.

22. The original purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act (10 U.S.C. 1385) was to restrain Federal troops who had become deeply involved in law enforcement in the post-Civil War South--even in areas where civil government had been reestablished. See U.S. v. Hartley, 486 F.Supp. 1348, 1356 fn. 11 (M.D.Fla. 1980). The statute imposes criminal penalties for the improper uses of the military in domestic law enforcement matters. See U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1981), p. 1786.

23. Additional amendments were added in 1988. See Public Law 100-456 (1988).

24. Although anti-drug spending will decrease in FY 93, the rate of decline is slower than that of the DOD budget as a whole. William Matthews, "Counternarcotics Request Increased," Air Force Times, 24 February 1992, p. 2. See also Lane, "Newest War," p. 18.

25. "Combatting Drugs," National Military Strategy of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 15.

26. Some were suggesting the need for greater military authority in 1992. See Dale E. Brown, "Drugs on the Border: The Role of the Military," Parameters, 21 (Winter 1991-92), 58-59.

27. The rise in the rate of violent crime continued a trend begun in the 1980s when such offenses soared by 23%. See John W. Wright, ed., "Crime and Punishment," The Universal Almanac 1992 (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1991), p. 255.

28. "Harper's Index," Harper's Magazine, July 1991, p. 15.

29. George Will observed that "urban governments are failing to perform their primary function of protecting people from violence on streets and even in homes and schools." George F. Will, "Stressed Out in America," p. A27.

30. Using Guardsmen in a law enforcement capacity during riots and other emergencies was not unusual, but a regular presence in a civilian community in that role was unusual in those days. Guard members usually performed law enforcement activities in their status as state employees. This is distinct from their federalized status when they are incorporated into the US military. See U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1988), p. 2583; and K. R. Clark, "Spotlighting the Drug Zone," Pentagram, 30 January 1992, pp. 20-21.

31. Indeed, one of the specific purposes of the DC program was to "work with police to increase the uniformed presence in the neighborhood at night to cut down on illegal activity." See Clark p. 21.

32. For example, persons over the age of 65 vote at a rate 50% higher than that of the 18-34 age group. See George F. Will, "Stressed Out in America," p. A27.

33. The number of baby boomers in the population is expected to peak in 2020. See Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, "Trends Shaping the World," The Futurist, September-October 1991, p. 12. Persons over 65 were estimated to constitute 18% of the electorate by 2010. This group, together with the boomers over 45 years, would constitute 53% of the electorate by 2010. These percentages were computed from statistics found in the Universal Almanac 1992, "The U.S. Population by Age," John W. Wright, ed. (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel, 1991), p. 207.

34. Deidre Fanning, "Waiting for the Wealth," Worth, February/March 1992, pp. 87, 89.

35. A 1990 poll of Americans aged 50 years and older showed that nearly 23% believed that use of the military was the best way to combat the growing problems of drug abuse and crime. See Mark S. Hoffman, ed., The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1991 (New York: Pharo Books, 1990), p. 33.

36. "Plan to Open Veterans Hospitals to Poor is Dropped," The New York Times, 23 February 1992, p. 17.

37. Scott Shuger, "Pacify the Military," The New York Times, 14 March 1992, p. 25.

38. Andy Tobias, "Let's Get Moving!" Time, 3 February 1992, p. 41.

39. U.S. News & World Report noted that "a third of the officers leaving the Army are qualified to teach high school math, and 10 to 20 percent can teach physics." David Gergen, "Heroes For Hire," U.S. News & World Report, 27 January 1992, p. 71.

40. For example, a District of Columbia National Guard unit entered into a "Partnership in Education" agreement with a local school district. Under the memorandum the Guard agreed to "institute a cooperative learning center providing tutoring in science, English, mathematics, and other basic subjects." See "Guard Enters Partnership with School," Pentagram, 13 February 1992, p. 3. For another example, see "Arlington Schools Join Forces with Defense Department Agency," The Washington Post, 12 December 1991, p. Va. 1.

41. The DOD budget for environmental cleanup for FY 93 was $3.7 billion. Anne Garfinkle, "Going Home is Hard to Do," The Wall Street Journal, 27 January 1992, p. 12. See also Peter Grier, "US Defense Department Declares War on Colossal Pollution Problem," The Christian Science Monitor, 2 March 1992, p. 9. The Army, at least, saw this activity as a "vital mission" as early as 1991. The National Journal reported: "Outside the Storm, a pamphlet heralding the Army's post-Persian Gulf war `vital missions and important work' touches on the war on drugs and `protecting the planet Earth' (even reprinting a syrupy ode to environmentalism from the 1989 Sierra Club Wilderness Calendar)." David C. Morrison, "Operation Kinder and Gentler," National Journal, 25 May 1991, p. 1260.

42. In February 1992 Trans World Airlines became the eighth major airline to go bankrupt since 1989. Martha M. Hamilton, "Trans World Airlines Files for Bankruptcy," The Washington Post, 1 February 1992, p. C2. By 1992 US-flagged commercial shipping had virtually disappeared. See James Bovard, "The Antiquated 1920 Jones Act Slowly Sinks U.S. Shipping," Insight, 6 January 1992, p. 21. In the wake of Desert Storm, $3.1 billion was spent to build and convert ships for the military's cargo fleet. Michael Blood, "An Idea to Use Shipyard as a U.S. Sealift Base," Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 February 1992, p. B-1. The precedent for "leasing" military resources can be traced to 1992. Just such an arrangement occurred in Germany following reunification: "A shortage of German [air] controllers and their unfamiliarity with newly reunified Berlin's busy skies prompted Germany to hire a squadron from the US Air Force at a cost of $35 million for four years. . . . It is the only US military unit that guides civilian air traffic on foreign soil." Soraya S. Nelson, "AF Controllers in Berlin Keep Eye on Civilian Sky," Air Force Times, 10 February 1992, p. 22.

43. See, e.g., Helen Dewar, "Nunn Urges Military Shift: Forces Would Aid Domestic Programs," The Washington Post, 24 June 1992, p. A17; Rick Maze, "Nunn Urges Military to Take Domestic Missions, Army Times, 21 September 1992, p. 16; Mary Jordan, "Bush Orders U.S. Military to Aid Florida," The Washington Post, 28 August 1992, p. A1; George C. Wilson, "Disaster Plan: Give Military the Relief Role," Army Times, 21 September 1992, p. 33; and Rick Maze, "Pentagon May Get Disaster-relief Role Back," Army Times, 21 September 1992, p. 26. See also note 64.

44. See Shuger, p. 25. Similarly, noting the growing obsolescence of the Guard's combat role, a National Guard officer proposed an alternative: "The National Guard can provide a much greater service to the nation by seeking more combat support and combat service support missions and the structure to support them. Such units can participate in nation building or assistance missions throughout the world, to include the United States. . . . Much of our national infrastructure, streets, bridges, health care, water and sewer lines, to name just a few, particularly in the inner cities of the United States, are in disrepair. Many of the necessary repairs could be accomplished by National guard units on a year-round training basis." Colonel Philip Drew, "Taking the National Guard Out of Combat," National Guard, April 1991, p. 38. Also jumping on the bandwagon are National Guard officers Colonel Philip A. Brehm and Major Wilbur E. Gray in "Alternative Missions for the Army," SSI Study, Strategic Studies Institute, USAWC, 17 July 1992.

45. Eric Schmitt, "U.S. Forces Find Work As Angels Of Mercy," The New York Times, 12 January 1992, p. E3.

46. See the legislative history of Public Law 99-661, U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul: West, 1986) p. 6482. Public Law 99-661 codified in 10 U.S.C. 401 et seq.

47. Ken Adelman, "Military Helping Hands," Washington Times, 8 July 1991, p. D3; Bruce B. Auster with Robin Knight, "The Pentagon Scramble to Stay Relevant," U.S. News & World Report, 30 December 1991/6 January 1992, p. 52.

48. It was predicted that the AIDS epidemic would hit Africa especially hard with infection rates in some cities as high as 40% by the year 2000. See Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, "Trends Shaping the World," The Futurist, September-October 1991, p. 12. Some experts have predicted that African famine might present a requirement for a military humanitarian mission (Weiss and Campbell, pp. 451-52). See also Richard H. P. Sia, "U.S. Increasing Its Special Forces Activity in Africa," The Baltimore Sun, 15 March 1992, p. 1. Long-term military commitments to humanitarian operations have been recommended by some experts (Weiss and Campbell, p. 457).

49. US troops assigned to African countries in the early 1990s were tasked to "help improve local health-care and economic conditions." See Sia, p. 1. Similarly, the notion of using the expertise of US military personnel to perform governmental functions in foreign countries was also suggested in the 1990s. For example, when the food distribution system in the former Soviet Union broke down during the winter of 1991-92, there were calls for Lieutenant General Gus Pagonis, the logistical wizard of the First Gulf War, to be dispatched to take charge of the system. See "A Man Who Knows How," editorial, The Los Angeles Times, 5 February 1992, p. 10.

50. As quoted in Dictionary of Military and Naval Quotations, Robert Debs Heinl, Jr., ed. (Annapolis: US Naval Institute, 1966), p. 245.

51. Public Law 99-433 (1986). Under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act, the Chairman of the JCS was given much broader powers. Not only is he now the primary military advisor to the President, he is also responsible for furnishing strategic direction to the armed forces, strategic and contingency planning, establishing budget priorities, and developing joint doctrine for all four services. Edward Luttwak and Stuart L. Koehl, eds., The Dictionary of Modern War (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 320. The law also mandated that joint duty be a requirement for promotion to flag rank. See Vincent Davis, "Defense Reorganization and National Security," The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, September 1991, pp. 163-65. This facilitated development of senior military cliques which transcended service lines.

52. Many praised Goldwater-Nichols as the source of success in the Gulf War. See, e.g., "Persian Gulf War's Unsung Hero," editorial, Charleston, S.C., News & Courier, 4 April 1991, p. 6. See also Sam Nunn, "Military Reform Paved Way for Gulf Triumph," Atlanta Constitution, 31 March 1991, p. G5. But the Gulf War was not a true test of either Goldwater-Nichols or joint warfare. About all that conflict demonstrated was that poorly trained and miserably led conscript armies left unprotected from air attack cannot hold terrain in the face of a modern ground assault.

53. One study concluded that because of Powell's background he was "especially well qualified" for the politically sensitive role as CJCS. See Preston Niblock, ed., Managing Military Operations in Crises (Santa Monica: RAND, 1991), p. 51.

54. Representative Denton stated as to Goldwater-Nichols: "This legislation proposes to reverse 200 years of American history by, for the first time, designating by statute . . . a single uniformed officer as the "Principal Military Advisor" to the President. That change in the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is profound in its implications. Similar proposals have been specifically and overwhelmingly rejected in the past--in 1947, 1949, 1958--on the grounds that, in a democracy, no single military officer, no matter what his personal qualifications, should have such power." U.S. Code Congressional & Administrative News (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1986), p. 2248. See also Robert Previdi, Civilian Control versus Military Rule (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1988).

55. In The Federalist No. 51 the Founding Fathers warned against the folly of constructing a governmental system based on assumptions about the good character of individuals who might occupy an office.

56. William Matthews, "Nunn: Merge the Services?" Air Force Times, 9 March 1992, p. 6.

57. This belief was enshrined in Joint Pub 1, Joint Warfare of the United States (Washington: Office of the JCS, 11 November 1991). It states (p. iii) that "joint warfare is essential to victory." While joint warfare might usually be essential to victory, it cannot be said that it is essential in every instance. For example, rebels--composed entirely of irregular infantry--defeated massive Soviet combined-arms forces in Afghanistan. Equipped only with light arms, Stinger missiles, and light antiaircraft guns, they triumphed without benefit of any air or naval forces, and indeed without unity among themselves. Furthermore, even in the case of Western nations, there are likely to be plenty of hostilities involving single-service air or naval campaigns.

58. Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman described the value of this creative tension in discussing his criticism of the "unified" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff occasioned by Goldwater-Nichols. According to Lehman: "Franklin Roosevelt . . . wanted to hear Admiral King argue with Marshall in front of him. He wanted to hear MacArthur argue against Nimitz, and the Air Corps against the Army, and the Navy against all in his presence, so that he would have the option to make the decisions of major strategy in war. He knew that any political leader, no matter how strong, if given only one military position, finds it nearly impossible to go against it. Unfortunately . . . now the president does not get to hear arguments from differing points of view." John Lehman, "U.S. Defense Policy Options: The 1990s and Beyond," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, September 1991, pp. 199-200.

59. See, e.g., Arthur C. Forster, Jr., "The Essential Need for An Independent Air Force," Air Force Times, 7 May 1990, p. 25.

60. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, as reprinted in the Great Books of the Western World, Robert M. Hutchins, ed. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), XLIII, 163.

61. Shakespeare called ambition "the soldier's virtue." Antony and Cleopatra, Act III, Scene 1, as reprinted in the Great Books of the Western World, Robert M. Hutchins, ed. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), XXVII, 327.

62. Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1959), p. 87, said "If the officer corps is originally divided into land, sea, and air elements, and then is unified under the leadership of a single, overall staff and military commander in chief, this change will tend to increase its authority with regard to other institutions of government. It will speak with one voice instead of three. Other groups will not be able to play off one of the officer corps against another."

63. Bruce B. Auster with Robin Knight, "The Pentagon Scramble to Stay Relevant," U.S. News & World Report, 30 December 1991/6 January 1992, p. 52. Despite the Gulf War, defense outlays were scheduled by 1997 to shrink to their lowest percentage of the federal budget since the end of World War II. Sara Collins, "Cutting Up the Military," U.S. News & World Report, 10 February 1992, p. 29. See also John Lancaster, "Aspin Seeks to Double Bush's Defense Cuts," The Washington Post, 27 February 1992, p. A16; and Helen Dewar, "Bush, Mitchell Take Aim at Slashing the Defense Budget," The Washington Post, 17 January 1992, p. B1.

64. Morrison, "Operation Kinder and Gentler," p. 1260. Most revealing, on 1-2 December 1992, the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C., hosted a symposium titled "Non-Traditional Roles for the U.S. Military in the Post-Cold War Era," featuring presentations on disaster relief, refugee evacuation, humanitarian medical care, engineering assistance to infrastructure and environment, counternarcotics, riot control, emergency preparedness, civil unrest, national assistance, etc.

65. Military analyst Harry Summers insists that ROTC is a key reason military coups have not occurred in the United States as they have in other countries. He notes: "ROTC was designed to produce a well-rounded officer corps inculcated with the principles of freedom, democracy, and American values through close contact with civilian students on an open college campus, and through a liberal education taught by a primarily civilian academic faculty. And that's just what has happened." Harry Summers, "Stalking the Wrong Quarry," Washington Times, 7 December 1989, p. F-3.

66. The Army plans to cut ROTC officer acquisitions from 7,778 in 1990 to 5,200 in 1995. See Peter Copeland, "ROTC More Selective in Post-Cold War Era," Washington Times, 27 May 1991, p. 3.

67. David Wood, "A Breed Apart, Volunteer Army Grows Distant from Society," The Star Ledger (Newark, N.J.), 24 April 1991, p. 1.

68. The armed services will shrink at least 25% by 1995. Richard Cheney, "U.S. Defense Strategy for An Era of Uncertainty," International Defense Review, 1992, p. 7. But service academy graduates are expected to decline by only 10% during the same period. Eric Schmitt, "Service Academies Grapple With Cold War Thaw," The New York Times, 3 March 1992, p. 12. Just after the Vietnam War, West Point was supplying about 8% of new Army officers, compared to the current 24%, a new study by the congressional General Accounting Office (GAO) suggests. To roll back the officer stream from West Point, the GAO says, enrollment might have to be limited to 2,500 cadets, a 40% drop from today. Larry Gordon, "Changing Cadence at West Point," Los Angeles Times, 25 March 1992, p. 1.

69. See, e.g., Tom Philip, "CSUS May End ROTC Over Anti-Gay Policy," Sacramento Bee, 15 February 1992, p. 1.

70. As of November 1991, 89 law schools prohibit or restrict on-campus military recruiting. See "Sexual Preference Issue," HQ USAF/JAX Professional Development Update, November 1991, p. 9. Such bans are not legal in most cases. See 10 U.S.C. 2358; and U.S. v. City of Philadelphia, 798 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1986). Furthermore, by condoning the exclusion of military recruiters from campuses--billed as "marketplaces of ideas"--these universities legitimized censorship of "politically incorrect" views.

71. An article by journalist David Wood grasped this trend. He quoted an Army officer as stating, "We are isolated--we don't have a lot of exposure to the outside world." Wood goes on to observe: "The nation's 2 million active duty soldiers are a self-contained society, one with its own solemn rituals, its own language, its own system of justice, and even its own system of keeping time. . . .Only a decade ago, life within the confines of a military base might have seemed a spartan existence. But improving the garrison life has been a high priority. As a result, many bases have come to resemble an ideal of small-town America. . . . There is virtually no crime or poverty. Drug addicts and homeless are mere rumors from the outside." David Wood, "Duty, Honor, Isolation: Military More and More a Force Unto Itself," The Star-Ledger (Newark, N.J.) 21 April 1991, p. 1. See also Laura Elliot, "Behind the Lines," The Washingtonian, April 1991, p. 160.

72. Wood, p. 1.

73. Studies indicate that defeat in war may actually increase the likelihood of a military coup. Ekkart Zimmermann, "Toward a Causal Model of Military Coups d'Etat," Armed Forces and Society, 5 (Spring 1979), 399.

74. United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17, 76 S.Ct. 1 (1955). Of course, Carl von Clausewitz had put it even better: "The end for which a soldier is recruited, clothed, armed, and trained, the whole object of his sleeping, eating, drinking, and marching, is simply that he should fight at the right place and the right time." On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Pres, 1976), p. 95.

75. Barton Gellman, "Strategy for the '90s: Reduce Size and Preserve Strength," The Washington Post, 9 December 1991, p. A10.

76. See, e.g., Brown, "Drugs on the Border: The Role of the Military," p. 50.

77. According to one report, the effort was futile and wasteful: "We're getting so little of the drug traffic for such a great expenditure of effort," lamented one Navy officer; "We're pouring money into the ocean, at a time when resources are scarce." William Matthews, "Drug War Funds Would Shrink Under Budget Proposal," Air Force Times, 17 February 1992, p. 33.

78. John Lancaster reported that proposals to cut Guard and reserve funding "inflame passions on Capitol Hill," causing Congress to resist cutting the part-time forces. "Pentagon Cuts Hill-Favored Targets," The Washington Post, 24 January 1992, p. A6. Art Pine reported that the Guard and reserves "exercise stunning political power and influence, both among state and local governments and in the power centers of Washington." Pine quoted Brookings Institute expert Martin Binkin as saying that the Guard/Reserve lobby "makes the gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association look like amateurs." Art Pine, "In Defense of 2nd Line Defenders," Los Angeles Times, 13 March 1992, p. 1.

79. Former Director of Operations for the Joint Staff, Lieutenant General Thomas Kelly, believed there was simply not enough training time to keep Guard units ready for the kind of highly complex warfare the Army now conducts. He said, "There is nothing on earth harder to teach than the maneuver function in combat." As quoted by Grant Willis, "A New Generation of Warriors," Navy Times, 16 March 1991, p. 12. The motivation of some Guardsmen toward fulfilling their military responsibilities was called into question when up to 80% of the Guardsmen in California units called up for Desert Storm reported for duty unable to meet physical fitness standards. Steve Gibson, "Guards Flunked Fitness," Sacramento Bee, 18 June 1991, p. B1.

80. "Decisive Force," National Military Strategy of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 10; "Contingency Forces," National Military Strategy of the United States (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 23. Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 31 January 1992 that the military of the future "would be smaller and more mobile and flexible. . . . Its likely target would be regional conflicts, in which American firepower might still be needed on short notice." As reported by Eric Schmitt, "Pentagon Says More Budget Cuts Would Hurt Combat Effectiveness," The New York Times, 1 February 1992, p. 9.

81. Military analyst and decorated combat veteran David Hackworth sized up the Guard and Reserves as follows: "Except for the air and Marine combat components, these forces aren't worth the billions paid each year to them. The combat service and support units are great, but there are too many of them." "A Pentagon Dreamland," The Washington Post, 23 February 1992, p. C3.

82. Operation Provide Hope was a two-week humanitarian aid effort involving 64 US Air Force sorties carrying approximately 4.5 million pounds of food and medicine. Michael Smith, "First of Up to 64 Relief Flights Arrives in Kiev," Air Force Times, 24 February 1992, p. 8. For Baker quotation, see David Hoffman, "Pentagon to Airlift Aid to Republics," The Washington Post, 24 January 1992, p. A1.

83. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also saw the military's future role in non-combat terms. Stating that there was "no plausible scenario" in which the United States would be involved in a military conflict in Europe or with elements of the former Soviet Union, he maintained that the likeliest use of military forces would be to address instability that could arise from migrations by poor peoples of the world to wealthier regions. He envisioned the military's role: "You would like to deal with this on a political and social level. The military's role should be subtle, similar to the role it plays now in Latin America--digging wells, building roads, and teaching the militaries of host nations how to operate under a democratic system. . . . When prevention fails, the military can be called to the more active role of running relief operations like the current one at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for fleeing Haitians. Operation Provide Comfort, the giant US military rescue mission to save Kurdish refugees who fled from the Iraqi army to the snow-covered mountains of southeastern Turkey last spring, may have been a precursor of what we can look forward to in the next decade if not the next century." As quoted by William Matthews, "Military Muscle to Shift to Humanitarian Help," Air Force Times, 6 January 1992, p. 14.

84. Leon Hader, "Reforming Israel--Before It's Too Late," Foreign Policy, No. 81 (Winter 1990/91), 111.

85. Richard J. Barnet, "Reflections--The Uses Of Force," The New Yorker, 29 April 1991, p. 82.

86. Charles Lane, "The Newest War," p. 18.

87. Newsweek reported the following incident: When a Marine reconnaissance patrol skirmished with smugglers near the Arizona-Mexico border last December--firing over their heads to disperse them--one colonel near retirement age shook his head. He argued that combat-trained Marines shouldn't be diminishing hard-learned skills by squeezing off warning shots. "That teaches some very bad habits," he said. Bill Torque and Douglas Waller, "Warriors Without War," Newsweek, 19 March 1990, p. 18.

88. Charles Lane, "The Newest War," p. 18.

89. As quoted by David Morrison in the National Journal. This relief operation involved 8,000 sailors and marines tasked to help millions of Bangladeshi survivors of a 30 April 1991 cyclone. See Morrison, "Operation Kinder and Gentler," p. 1260.

90. Barton Gellman, "Strategy for the '90s: Reduce Size and Preserve Strength," The Washington Post, 9 December 1991, p. A10.

91. Shuger, "Pacify the Military," p. 25.

92. Harry Summers, "When Armies Lose Sight of Purpose," Washington Times, 26 December 1991, p. D3.

93. See "Warnings Echo from Jefferson to Eisenhower to Desert Storm," USA Today, 1 March 1991, p. 10A.

94. A caller to a radio talk show typified this view. She stated that while she appreciated the need for a military in case "something like Iraq came up again," she believed that the military ought to be put to work rebuilding the infrastructure and cleaning up the cities instead of "sitting around the barracks." "The Joel Spevak Show," Station WRC, Washington, D.C., 11 March 1992.

95. One example of the dangers of lowering standards to achieve social goals is "Project 100,000." Conceived as a Great Society program, youths with test scores considered unacceptably low were nevertheless allowed to enter the armed forces during the 1966-1972 period. The idea was to give the disadvantaged poor the chance to obtain education and discipline in a military environment, but the results were a fiasco. See Marilyn B. Young, The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990 (New York: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 320.

96. Richard A. Gabriel, To Serve with Honor (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1982), p. 178.

Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF, is the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, US Central Command, at MacDill AFB, Florida. He is a graduate of St. Joseph's University (Pa.), the Villanova University School of Law, and the Armed Forces Staff College, and he is a Distinguished Graduate of the National War College, Class of 1992. He has taught at the Air Force Judge Advocate General's School, and served tours in Korea and the United Kingdom. In 1987 he was a Circuit Military Judge, First Judicial Circuit, and was subsequently assigned to the Air Staff in the Office of the Judge Advocate General. Lieutenant Colonel Dunlap was recently named by the Judge Advocates' Association as the USAF's Outstanding Career Armed Services Attorney of 1992. The present article is adapted from his National War College student paper that was co-winner of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 1991-92 Strategy Essay Competition, in which students from all the senior service colleges compete.

Reviewed 25 November 1996. Please send comments or corrections to Parameters@carlisle.army.mil.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
A more current bio:
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. is Deputy Judge Advocate General, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. General Dunlap assists the Judge Advocate General in the professional oversight of more than 2,200 judge advocates, 350 civilian attorneys, 1,400 enlisted paralegals and 550 civilians assigned worldwide. In addition to overseeing an array of military justice, operational, international and civil law functions, General Dunlap provides legal advice to the Air Staff and commanders at all levels.

General Dunlap was commissioned through the ROTC program at St. Joseph's University in May 1972, and was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1975. He has deployed to support various operations in the Middle East and Africa, including Provide Relief, Restore Hope, Vigilant Warrior, Desert Fox, Bright Star and Enduring Freedom. He has led military-to-military delegations to Uruguay, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Colombia.

The general speaks widely on legal and national security issues, and he is published in Air and Space Power Journal, Peacekeeping & International Relations, Parameters, Proceedings Military Review, the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, the Air Force Times, the Wake Forest Law Review, the Air Force Law Review, the Tennessee Law Review, and the Strategic Review, among others. Prior to assuming his current position, General Dunlap served as the Staff Judge Advocate at Headquarters Air Combat Command.

EDUCATION
1972 Bachelor of Arts degree, St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pa.
1975 Juris Doctorate, Villanova University School of Law, Villanova, Pa.
1979 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
1984 Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va.
1989 Air War College, by correspondence
1992 Distinguished graduate, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.
1996 National Security Program, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, N.Y.

ASSIGNMENTS
1. January 1976 - April 1977, Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, 2nd Combat Group, Barksdale AFB, La.
2. April 1977 - May 1978, Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, 51st Combat Group, Osan Air Base, South Korea
3. May 1978 - December 1978, Chief, Civil Law Division, 20th Combat Group, Royal Air Force Upper Heyford, England
4. December 1978 - March 1980, Chief, Military Justice Division, 20th Tactical Fighter Wing, RAF Upper Heyford, England
5. March 1980 - July 1983, faculty member, Air Force Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
6. July 1983 - January 1984, Chief, Military Justice Division, Air Force Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
7. January 1984 - July 1984, student, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Va.
8. July 1984 - July 1987, Staff Judge Advocate, 97th Bombardment Wing, Blytheville AFB, Ark.
9. July 1987 - June 1989, Circuit Military Judge, Air Force Legal Services Agency, Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C.
10. June 1989 - August 1991, Chief, Personnel Action Law Branch, General Law Division, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
11. August 1991 - July 1992, student, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.
12. July 1992 - January 1995, Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Central Command, MacDill AFB, Fla.
13. January 1995 - July 1998, Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt AFB, Neb.
14. July 1998 - July 2000, Staff Judge Advocate, 9th Air Force, Shaw AFB, S.C.
15. July 2000 - February 2002, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters Air Education and Training Command, Randolph AFB, Texas
16. February 2002 - May 2006, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Va.
17. May 2006 - present, Deputy Judge Advocate General, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Defense Superior Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters
Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters
Air Force Commendation Medal
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze stars
Humanitarian Service Medal
Air Force Overseas Ribbon - Short
Air Force Overseas Ribbon - Long
Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS
1984 Outstanding Judge Advocate of the Year, Strategic Air Command
1992 U.S. Air Force Outstanding Career Armed Services Attorney
1996 Thomas P. Keenan Award for international and operations law

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION
Second Lieutenant May 14, 1972
First Lieutenant June 9, 1975
Captain Jan. 20, 1976
Major Jan. 1, 1983
Lieutenant Colonel Sept. 1, 1988
Colonel Aug. 1, 1993
Brigadier General Sept. 1, 2002
Major General May 3, 2006

Pakistan: "The Taliban's Godfather"

2007-08-23T18:15:00.000-05:00

Washington D.C., August 14, 2007 - A collection of newly-declassified documents published today detail U.S. concern over Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban during the seven-year period leading up to 9-11. This new release comes just days after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, acknowledged that, "There is no doubt Afghan militants are supported from Pakistan soil." While Musharraf admitted the Taliban were being sheltered in the lawless frontier border regions, the declassified U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself.

Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan. [Doc 17] The records released today represent the most complete and comprehensive collection of declassified documentation to date on Pakistan's aid programs to the Taliban, illustrating Islamabad's firm commitment to a Taliban victory in Afghanistan. [Doc 34].

These new documents also support and inform the findings of a recently-released CIA intelligence estimate characterizing Pakistan's tribal areas as a safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorists, and provide new details about the close relationship between Islamabad and the Taliban in the years prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Declassified State Department cables and U.S. intelligence reports describe the use of Taliban terrorist training areas in Afghanistan by Pakistani-supported militants in Kashmir, as well as Pakistan's covert effort to supply Pashtun troops from its tribal regions to the Taliban cause in Afghanistan-effectively forging and reinforcing Pashtun bonds across the border and consolidating the Taliban's severe form of Islam throughout Pakistan's frontier region.

Also published today are documents linking Harakat ul-Ansar, a militant Kashmiri group funded directly by the government of Pakistan, [Doc 10] to terrorist training camps shared by Osama bin Laden in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. [Doc 16]

Of particular concern was the potential for Islamabad-Taliban links to strengthen Taliban influence in Pakistan's tribal regions along the border. A January 1997 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan observed that "for Pakistan, a Taliban-based government in Kabul would be as good as it can get in Afghanistan," adding that worries that the "Taliban brand of Islam…might infect Pakistan," was "apparently a problem for another day." [Doc 20] Now ten years later, Islamabad seems to be acknowledging the domestic complications that the Taliban movement has created within Pakistan. A report produced by Pakistan's Interior Ministry and obtained by the International Herald Tribune in June 2007 warned President Pervez Musharraf that Taliban-inspired Islamic militancy has spread throughout Pakistan's tribal regions and could potentially threaten the rest of the country. The document is "an accurate description of the dagger pointed at the country's heart," according to one Pakistani official quoted in the article. "It's tragic it's taken so long to recognize it."

Islamabad denies that it ever provided military support to the Taliban , but the newly-released documents report that in the weeks following the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 1996, Pakistan's intelligence agency was "supplying the Taliban forces with munitions, fuel, and food." Pakistan's Interservice Intelligence Directorate was "using a private sector transportation company to funnel supplies into Afghanistan and to the Taliban forces." [Doc 15] Other documents also conclude that there has been an extensive and consistent history of "both military and financial assistance to the Taliban." [Doc 8]

The newly-released documents also shed light on the complexity of U.S. diplomacy with Pakistan as the State Department has struggled to maintain the U.S.-Pakistan alliance amid concerns over the rise of the Taliban regime. In one August 1997 cable, U.S. Ambassador Thomas W. Simons advises, "Our good relations with Pakistan associate us willy-nilly, so we need to be extremely careful about Pakistani proposals that draw us even closer," adding that, "Pakistan is a party rather than just a mediator [in Afghanistan]." [Doc 24] In another 1997 cable, the Embassy asserts that "the best policy for the U.S. is to steer clear of direct involvement in the disputes between the two countries [Pakistan and Iran], and to continue to work for peace in Afghanistan." [Doc 22]

As to Pakistan's end-game in supporting the Taliban, several documents suggest that in the interest of its own security, Pakistan would try to moderate some of the Taliban's more extreme policies. [Doc 8] But the Taliban have a long history of resistance to external interests, and the actual extent of Pakistani influence over the Taliban during this period remains largely speculative. As the State Department commented in a cable from late-1995, "Although Pakistan has reportedly assured Tehran and Tashkent that it can control the Taliban, we remain unconvinced. Pakistan surely has some influence on the Taliban, but it falls short of being able to call the shots." [Doc 7]

Highlights

August 1996: Pakistan Intelligence (ISID) "provides at least $30,000 - and possibly as much as $60,000 - per month" to the militant Kashmiri group Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA). Despite this aid, the group is reaching out to sponsors of international terrorism including Osama bin Laden for additional support, and may in the near future become a threat to Islamabad itself as well as U.S. interests. HUA contacts have hinted they "might undertake terrorist actions against civilian airliners." [Doc 10]
October 1996: A Canadian intelligence document released by the National Security Agency and originally classified Top Secret SI, Umbra comments on recent Taliban military successes noting that even Pakistan "must harbour some concern" regarding the Taliban's impressive capture of Kabul, as such victory may diminish Pakistan's influence over the movement and produce a Taliban regime in Kabul with strong links to Pakistan's own Pashtuns. [Doc 14]
October 1996: Although food supplies from Pakistan to the Taliban are conducted openly through Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISID, "the munitions convoys depart Pakistan late in the evening hours and are concealed to reveal their true contents." [Doc 15]
November 1996: Pakistan's Pashtun-based "Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat" alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. [Doc 17]
March 1998: Al-Qaeda and Pakistan government-funded Harakat ul-Ansar (HUA) have been sharing terrorist training camps in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan for years [Link Doc 16], and HUA has increasingly been moving ideologically closer to al-Qaeda. The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad is growing increasingly concerned as Fazlur Rahman Khalil, a leader in Pakistan's Harakat ul-Ansar has signed Osama bin Laden's most recent fatwa promoting terrorist activities against U.S. interests. [Doc 26]
September 1998 [Doc 31] and March 1999 [Doc 33]: The U.S. Department of State voices concern that Pakistan is not doing all it can to pressure the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden. "Pakistan has not been responsive to our requests that it use its full influence on the Taliban surrender of Bin Ladin." [Doc 33]
September 2000: A cable cited in The 9/11 Commission Report notes that Pakistan's aid to the Taliban has reached "unprecedented" levels, including recent reports that Islamabad has possibly allowed the Taliban to use territory in Pakistan for military operations. Furthermore the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors." [Doc 34]
Read the Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.
Document 1 - [Excised] to Ron McMullen (Afghanistan Desk), "Developments in Afghanistan," December 5, 1994, Unknown Classification, 1 p. [Excised]

Just as the Taliban are emerging as a major player in Afghanistan, a source [name excised] is troubled over Pakistan's deep involvement in Afghan politics and Pakistan's evident role in the Taliban's recent military successes. His concerns include, "that the GOP [Government of Pakistan] ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] is deeply involved in the Taleban take over in Kandahar and Qalat," and that Pakistan's efforts to further its agenda in Afghanistan will sabotage U.N. peace efforts currently being led by Mahmoud Mesteri, Special Envoy for Afghanistan for the U.N. Secretary General.

EXCLUSIVE: AT&T neuters the BlackBerry 8820 in favor of the iPhone

2007-08-22T07:43:00.000-05:00

August 16, 2007 | Posted at 10:55 am by Douglas Soltys in Rumors, News |
Wow. I must say, this is probably the biggest piece of news we’ve ever broken here at BlackBerry Cool — and possibly the one that’s made us the angriest. We’ve just received word from one of our friends inside AT&T that the US carrier has been successful in their attempts to lockdown the GPS functionality in their upcoming BlackBerry 8820 so that the only functioning 3rd party software will be TeleNav.

First, this is a major piss off to AT&T customers looking to get their hands on the BlackBerry 8820 mid-September, but what’s more important is why AT&T chose to do this. Apparently - and remember, this is coming from someone inside AT&T - the carrier didn’t want to launch a device that would seem superior (or be competitive) to the iPhone. Sounds a little crazy, until you realize that a GPS/Wi-Fi’d device with push email and no funny-texting touch screen that’s subsidized in price sounds a bit more appealing than a $500 device that enterprise customers can’t use.

We’ve been told that RIM was apparently livid over the decision (and with good reason), but AT&T basically said “do it or we won’t buy the 8820 or any future devices from you” and RIM backed down. Our AT&T informant also said that this was a call made by top RIM/AT&T brass, which sheds new light on Jim Balsillie’s statement that the carriers are one of RIM’s three masters.
So, to recap:
– The AT&T BlackBerry will have neutered GPS capabilities
– The T-Mobile 8820 will be better than the AT&T version
– Apple has won the first round against RIM

Let’s check that last statement for a second. Our informant was unsure if Steve Jobs called the hit, or if this decision was made solely by AT&T to protect their serious investment in the iPhone. The fact of the matter, however, is that RIM’s biggest North American customer just crippled one of their enterprise devices in favor of a consumer device that supposedly doesn’t compete with the BlackBerry.

Post a comment and let us know what you think about this crazy news. Personally, we never liked AT&T that much in the first place, but we like them even less for screwing over the BlackBerry faithful so they can make more money.

Intellipedia

2007-08-21T18:27:00.000-05:00

I would strongly recommend clicking on the link above int he title. This overview will not only inform you about Intellipedia, but also migh give you some insights on how to utilize current technology in yoru own business systems.

Briefing on "The Intellipedians"™ The social software movement within the U.S. Intelligence Community
A cadre of U.S. intelligence analysts is working to shake-up the ways that national security intelligence has been customarily shared, sifted, and presented to policymakers. Using simple collaborative software tools and instituting "new rules" for mashing the data, the "Intellipedians"are slowly changing a mindset molded by years of stove-pipes and intelligence hoarding.

In this Web audio-slide presentation, Chris Rasmussen, Knowledge Management Officer, Intellipedia, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, talks about what it's like to work as an Intellipedian, the rules they live by, and how the new tools are helping transform the ways of the intelligence-processing for good. Rasmussen made this presentation at FCW's recent Spring Government CIO Summit, in Ft. Myers, Fla.