GW Bush - Denser than Depleted Uranium
Sometimes I just can't believe the things that come out of his mouth. I read something, and in my mind I do a classic, slow-motion Jon Stewart doubletake. "Whhaaaa??" Here's a great example:
My message to the Iranian people is: You can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy," Bush said in a year-end press conference. "And you can do better than having somebody who's trying to develop a nuclear weapon that the world believes you shouldn't have. There's a better way forward," said the US president.
Ok, just ignore the tortured syntax. America's president is functionally illiterate. But for a leader with an approval rating in the high 20% range to tell the Iranians they can do better for a leader is so mindbendingly unaware as to be close to parody.
The Iranian people "have got a leader who constantly sends messages to the world that Iran is out of step with the majority of thinkers, that Iran is willing to become isolated, to the detriment of the people," said Bush.
Jeez. That just hurts. Thought experiment. Substitute "American" for "Iranian" in that paragraph and see if it sounds any less credible. American Exceptionalism is truly a dread disease, but when it infects your mind to the point where you say things like this, you are functionally disabled by being unable to see the world as it really is, and you need to seek professional care. And why are people still standing around nodding sagely when the Thug-in-Chief drops these little bon mots? He's lost the people, he's lost the congress, he's lost credibility and confidence. It's probably safe to start telling the truth about him now. Anyone?
Global Warming - Teaching old Dogma New Tricks
Look, I'm not a climate scientist. I don't play one on TV. My scientific interests run more to high energy physics, astrophysics and cosmology. But I remember very clearly, decades ago in high school science class, learning about the "Greenhouse Effect". That is, gasses in a planet's atmosphere would trap and reflect solar heat, making the planet warmer than it might otherwise have been. Back then, nobody was talking about Global Warming, let alone the causes of it. But it is clearly reasonable science that it could happen, given what we know about the heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gasses.
And yet, we have these people, all of them clearly with an agenda, taking a page out of the Discovery Institute's playbook and trying to create some kind of contraversy around global climate change. So maybe we need to rephrase the position in order to give these trogolodytes a little less firm ground to stand on.
We know the science is sound - greenhouse gasses trap heat and raise temperatures. We know that, given the records and information available to us, this SEEMS to be happening. The people arguing agains have only two positions. One, that it's part of a natural cycle and not the inexorable march up the thermometer's scale it appears to be, and two, global temperatures are rising, but human activities have nothing to do with it. These positions lead to the same conclusion - If it's a natural cycle, there's no need to do anything, it will reverse itself, and if temperatures are rising but it's not due to human activity, anything we would do would be futile, so why sacrifice? These are dangerous, short-sighted positions, but I think we should ask a different question.
If we can begin to reduce carbon output, through conservation, technology and economics,
why shouldn't we? Everywhere people are working to reduce greenhouse gasses, through offsets and cleaner technology and conservation, it has economic advantages. From communities using LEDs in stoplights to Toyota scoring a hit with the Prius to people buying offsets for their personal air travel, movement toward a more energy secure future with lower greenhouse gas emissions seems to contribute to economic activity rather than reduce it.
Senator Inhofe is in the pocket of big oil, and should therefore have no credibility, but he and his ilk are dangerous. Imagine a meteor was discovered on a collision course with earth, three years out. Now the scientists would have to say things like "very strong likelihood of impacting" or "80% probability of hitting the earth, 55% probability of hitting near a population center". Would it make sense for people to recomend that we do nothing, because it's likely it either won't hit us or if it does, it won't harm us? Of course not. We would try to find a way to destroy or deflect it. Why? Because it is a near-term risk. Why is it that we won't eat cyanide, but we'll smoke cigarettes? They both kill us, but one kills us right away, the other slowly, over many years.
All we can do, indeed all we NEED do, is to work around these people. Ignore them, marginalize them to whatever extent possible, and keep taking steps that will avert global warming. In the long term, it could make us extinct, and that's about as important as anything can be.
We're not winning, but we're not losing - 'Splain that to me?
Well, we seem to have consensus. Bush says it, Gates says it, generals say it. "We're not winning, but we're not losing". Of all the mealy - mouthed, wishy - washy, fence straddling expressions, this one is a winner. What exactly does it mean? That things are in perfect stasis, poised delicately between winning an losing, but not moving in either direction? How can we be there, and how can we be there for more than a nanosecond?
More likely, I think they have finally been driven to having to admit what everybody in the world knows, that we are not winning. But, somehow, they have to put a positive spin on that. Huh? Make "Not Winning" positive? Sure. Just add, "...and we're not losing" and you've got positive spin. Not logical, not reasonable, nothing that would pass the smell test, but this administration has been so successful in handing blatent falsehoods off to the populace and having them swallow and ask for more, they can't help themselves. And sure enough, nobody questions these meaningless pronouncements.
Look, this is armed conflict, not dodge ball. If you're not winning, you're losing. What's worse, we are trying to occupy a sovereign nation by force of arms. And the lesson has been learned, over and over, from Dien Bien Phu to Saigon to Somalia, from Algeria to Grozny to Kabul, no traditional army, no matter how powerful and well equipped, can defeat a guerrilla or insurgent force with popular support. So I guess we should say, "We're not winning - Because winning isn't possible under these circumstances". The only real question left is how bad the defeat will be...
A Government of National Unity?
Well, there's one thing all the American pundits and so-called experts agree upon. Not troop levels, not tactics, not strategy, not politics or economics or rebuilding. Nope, there's any number of opinions about these essential details. But everyone is certain of one thing - these gosh darn Militias have got to go. Most of the vitriol is aimed at Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, but there are others just as determined that we must somehow eliminate the Badr Brigades, and even to some extent the Kurdish Peshmerga.
There are various subtle differences in these schools of thought. Some say we must "crush" the Militias, some say we must "confront" the Militias. Others think in terms of "elimination", "marginalization" or "disband". But to a very great extent these are code words. What they are actually calling for is an armed confrontation, a declaration of war, if you will, against the Mehdi Army first, then on to the others if necessary.
When I hear this I shake my head and wonder just exactly how this is supposed to work, what is the desired outcome, and are we likely to get there in this manner? In many ways it feels like the run-up to the war itself in late 2002/early 2003. Sure, we know that with our air power, our artillery, our armor, our ability to move around the city and control the movements of others, we could defeat them militarily. But it's like its anathema to think about what happens next. You know, short-term, mid-term, long-term and unexpected consequences?
There seems to be this belief, even at this late date, that we can attack a militia, fight a one or two week battle, they will no longer be a factor. Just like that, they'd be gone. As a reminder, the Russians have been fighting the Chechnyan separatists for 13 years, and it has been seven years since Russian air and artillery flattened Grozny, the capital. They are still fighting. And look how well the Israelis have done eliminating Hezbollah. And Sri Lanka had no problem making the Tamil Tigers a non-issue. Not to mention the US Marines success with the Sunni Insurgency. Anybody in 2006, after witnessing the last fifty years of armed conflict, who still thinks that a regular army with it's air, artillery and armor, can defeat a guerrilla army with popular support, is dangerously stupid and should not be allowed to play around the levers of power.
So if the US decides to make this "Surge", and they bring the war to the Mehdi Army, what might happen? Well, the outcome would be on a scale from Terrible to Disasterous. Muqtada al-Sadr is the nominal leader of an urban social movement. Shiite muslims, Iraq Nationalists, they both form a key part of the coalition that brought Maliki to power and serve as a thorn in his side. In general, they are not on terribly friendly terms with al-Hakim's SCIRI and it's militia, the Badr Brigades, primarily due to SCIRI's alignment with Iran, Iraq's traditional enemy.
First, how many Iraqi soldiers and police are loyal to al Sadr? What will they do. What will his fellow Shiites do? Will they stand back and watch the elimination of a rival, once again courtesy the US taxpayer? Or might they recognize that they would likely be next and make a temporary alliance of convenience to fight the Americans. What will the Iraqi government think about large scale urban combat tearing apart the capitol city? What will the Sunnis and the insurgency do? Will they step back and let their two enemies, the Shi'a and the Americans bleed each other while they rearm and refit? Or will they recognize it as an opportunity to join forces with other Iraqis to raise the stakes in their fight against the occupying army? And what about Iran? If the Saudis have already stated that if the Americans pull out they will support the Sunnis in Iraq, would it not be expected that the Iranians might support their Iraqi bretheren when they are under assault?
I won't pretend to know enough about the complex relationships in the region to make a real prediction, but it is telling that it is impssible to imagine an outcome that would be better than awful. The only possible upside to starting down this path of fighting the Shiite militias would be to unite the Iraqi population in the common cause of driving the Americans off their soil. We may well achieve the oft-stated goal of Iraqi National Unity, but not in the way we intended it...
Approaching Perfection?
In it's current state of evolution, with one glaring exception, the US M-4 variant of the venerable M-16 comes very close to perfection as an infantry rifle. With the telescoping stock, Picatinny rail, Optical sight and vertical foregrip, the ergonomics are superb. Easy to carry, light, quick to deploy, easy to maintain in the field, this is a tremendously effective battlefield weapon, whether the battlefield is urban or countryside.
What about that exception? 5.56 NATO. Hey, I'm a HUGE fan of varmint rounds, and the goal of going lighter/faster in order to increase the number of rounds a soldier in the field can carry is admirable. But it's time for the DoD to recognize that this is too much of a compromise in a battle rifle round. You don't have to go all the way back to .308 to improve the situation. Something with a little more reach and a better set of terminal ballistics would be desireable. I'd develop the new round off the .270 Winchester. Something in the 6.5mm range, with an 85-100 grain slug at around 3400 fps. Very manageable recoil, effective to 800 meters, better energy delivery and knockdown power, minimal impact on the basic load - coupled with the current M-4 you'd have something serious that could serve for the forseeable future.
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!
Hey, congratulations are due to
Sadly, No! for winning best
Humor Blog in the 2006 Weblog Awards. If you don't know it, Sadly, No! is a collection of smart, funny, thoughtful people with a near perfect ear for current events. A nice balance of snark, poignance and a wonderfully secular sense of morality and ethics. It is my honor to be even a tiny part of that community. Nice work, guys!
More Troops? You're Kidding, Right?
It appears the administration is going to embark on it's most desperate gamble yet in Iraq. In spite of the ISG's findings and the wisdom of military professionals and the entire American people, the president appears prepared to send some large number of additional American combat troops, 20-40,000 of them, to Baghdad. One wonders if he is aware that if this gambit fails, there will be nothing left in the quiver except a full retreat?
And yet, what exactly can these troops accomplish? Who will they fight? Will they go to Anbar in some kind of Falluja II? If they are spread too thin, the Sunni insurgents will kill many of them. If they are there in overwhelming power, the insurgents will fade away, leaving only IEDs behind them. They have arms and funds - they can wait the Americans out. Will they take the fight to Muqtada al-Sadr? The Mehdi army is more than just a militia - it is a nationalist urban social movement, and while you can bleed it, you cannot defeat it. And by fighting it you make it stronger. And will the Badr brigades watch gleefully as the Americans take arms against the Shi'a, or will they come to the defense of their fellow shiites? Might they even make a temporary alliance with the Sunnis against the Americans? It doesn't seem that the Americans have a lot of good military options in Baghdad.
The consensus of opinion is that there is no military solution in Iraq. In fact, there is a very large school of thought that believes the American Military presence is contributing to the violence, instead of reducing it. But if there cannot be a military solution, what can more troops do to contribute to a solution? Iraq has reached the point where every faction from the Americans to the Government to the insurgency to the criminal element are all contributing to the horrendous ongoing violence. The only way for the violence to end is for the parties to negotiate an end to it. You can't stop violence like this with violence.
But even more dangerous is the gamble itself. What if the Americans, with great fanfare as the "New Way Forward in Iraq" put 30,000 additional combat troops into the theater. And despite bloody fighting and increased casualties, in April the violence is worse, the conditions are worse, the government is on the verge of collapse and the country is in chaos. There's no place to go from there. The additional troops that "surged" in January cannot be sustained and will have to be pulled out, along with other exhausted and depleted units. The world swivels it collective head around to gaze upon Washington with an expectent "OK, you created this mess, what now?" And there will be no solution. No "Newer Way Forward". Because the only option remaining will be how many troops to withdraw, how fast to draw down and get out.
Colin Powell was right back in 2002 when he spoke of the "Pottery Barn Rule - You Break it, You Buy It". Well, we broke it alright - and we just didn't have the resources to buy it.
In the National Interest
Lots of debate out there around diplomacy. Should we talk to Iran? Should we sit down with Syria? What can they do for us? What would we have to give them? I don't know about you, but I notice in all this a very serious disconnect. And it's not just the stupidity of refusing to speak diplomatically to your enemies. If you only talk to your friends, just exactly how are you affecting the outcome? But no, I'm talking about the underlying disconnect, not the obvious one on the surface. After all the things we've done and said, why would Iran or Syria
want to talk to us? Why wouldn't they be delighting as we twist at the end of a petard of our own creation? Why would they want to help dig us out of a hole that is bleeding away our wealth, our prestige and our unity at home?
The real question here is about national self-interest. Now there are a lot of things this administration doesn't understand, from their oath to defend the constitution to successful counter terrorism programs to American Values. But I can't understand how it is that they can't see that America's interests don't always coincide with another nation's. And that nation's leadership is just as obligated to work in their own national interest as is America's.
Iran is surrounded by hostile nations, at least two of which have nuclear weapons. To assist America in advancing it's agenda and hegemony in the region would not be good for Iran. So to expect them to do it would be silly. But there are areas where our national interests do coincide, and if we can leverage those areas to advance our agenda, we have to accept that we are also contributing to advancing their agenda - the best negotiations are always win-win.
Condaleeza Rice likes to say it's not about changing regimes, but about changing a nation's behavior. It seems that when a nation acts in it's own self interest, and that interest differs from that of the United States, it is condemned by the American Leadership. This is immensely hypocritical in light of the behavior of the United States, such as military invasions of sovereign nations, kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals and threatening to bomb other nations. When a powerful nation behaves the way America has for the last five years, it is not surprising that other countries interests would diverge rather sharply from ours. One need only ask oneself how Syria's support for American activities in the Middle East would contribute to Syria's security, prosperity or status? Indeed, opposing the regional or global superpowers has been in the best interest of many small countries over the years. Most recently, Hezzbollah gained immense prestige by standing up to the Israeli military and not losing.
America's criminal actions in the Middle East have brought together two conditions that, when combined, have the opportunity to inflame the region and start a major regional war. The first is instability. Sunni, Shi'a, Kurd, Arab, Persian, there was a balance between the nations around the Gulf. Sure, they eyed each other with suspicion and distrust, but for the most part found a way to keep the dogs of war at bay. They had a common cause in the plight of the Palestinians, they had plenty of oil money with which to buy off political threats, and they had authoritarian, one party governments that could keep the most extreme dissidents silenced. But it was all built on a precarious balance, a self-enforcing stability. Nobody wanted to rock the boat to the point of capsizing. Then, like a bull in a china shop, the US pushed a huge military force into Iraq, and stayed as occupiers. Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Saudi, Egypt, Israel - every nation in the region had an agenda. The resulting instability has worsened, litterally unchecked, to the point where the Sunni nations fear the "Shiite Crescent", the Turks fear the Kurdish Separatists, and the Iranians are flush with power and influence. There seems to be little to prevent the violence from spreading.
On top of this instability is the sense of Us vs. Them that now pervades the region. The sects, the political groups, the economic blocs-they are all now fearful of losing their wealth and position. And in the violence, bloodshed and mistrust engendered by America's ill-advised foray into imperialism, they see fewer and fewer options to war. Underneath it all are the Muslim Fundamentalists, appealing to people who have been unrepresented for decades, who have not seen the oil wealth translate to a higher standard of living for them or better economic opportunity for their childeren.
Let's admit upfront that the "Spreading Democracy" justification for American Military occupation on the oilfields is a lie. We know it, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Here's a government that won't help Palestine, won't help Haiti, won't help with poverty or oppression anywhere in the world, except, of course, if it can help protect America's access to petroleum. But its appropriate we consider the consequences of a half-hearted and half-assed attempt to create a functioning democracy at the point of a gun. First, democracy is more than voting. Indeed, voting can put a majority in power overnight, but that seldom results in anything resembling what you or I might call democracy. There needs to be a functioning economy and an established respect for the rule of law within a society before constitutional democracy is anything more than words on parchment. And in the case of Iraq, where the majority had been oppressed and held at bay by a minority by means of fear, violence and intimidation, and suddenly that majority population is allowed to go directly from the battlefield to the ballot box, you achieve the well known "Tyrany of the Majority". This is not going to be a democracy, this is going to be a dictatorship with voting.
Of course America should talk to it's enemies. It should talk to everyone, regularly, just to see what might be accomplished by means other than breaking their stuff and killing their people. But do not be surprised if they are hesitant to talk to us.
Appalling
From Reuters, 12/13/06:
Bush, who has resisted pressure to hold talks with Syria, as well as Iran, as part of a new approach to ending violence in Iraq, issued a statement calling on Syria to "immediately free all political prisoners."
How many in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the American Gulags in Eastern Europe? How many disappeared - oh, sorry, renditioned? This is what happens when you give up the moral high ground - when you step up to the bully pulpit, nobody takes you seriously.
"What has not happened is the appropriate response by the Syrians in terms of their adventurism within the region, especially with regard to Lebanon, their continued support and housing of terrorist organizations," Snow said.
That would be Tony Snow, White House Non-Spokesman. How do you suppose people in the region feel, with armed-to-the-teeth Americans occupying two nearby nations by military force, when the American government speaks out against "adventurism" within the region? Do you suppose they are truly that tone-deaf in Washington, utterly unable to parse their own words?
When bush/cheney speaks out about adventurism, interference with sovreign nations, rogue nations, human rights abuses or the rule of law, who would listen without laughter? How can you take these militaristic, bloodthirsty authoritarian theocrats seriously when they don't appear to be able to recognize the very nature of their own acts, and the consequences of those acts? It's sad, and it's sickening, to see what a hypocritical laughingstock they have made of the "Shining City on the Hill"...
Muslim is the New Black
These have been hard times for racial hatred and bigotry in the US. From Mel Gibson to Michael Richards, a mere racist tirade can have very real negative consequences. But racism is deeply ingrained in the psyche of a particular portion of American society, so people have stuggled with finding expression for their hate.
Last summer offered some relief - a new codeword for anti-Latino biggotry. As long as one railed against "Illegal Immigration", you could spew a great deal of hatred and venom. You could propose all manner of harsh treatment for these "Illegals", from outright deportation without due process to concentration camps. But to the true American racist, this was unsatisfying. He wants to hate groups of his fellow human beings because of their nationality, their native language, their religion, and mostly the color of their skin. And he wants to express that hatred clearly, and even more, he wants a way to act on that hatred. So in this Politically Correct, Racially Sensitive world, what's a true bigot to do?
Thankfully, new opportunities have sprung up for those who like a little hatred and discrimination with their family values. First it was the Gays. Right wing christianists, in their desire for more intrusive, authoritarian government, discovered that it was perfectly acceptable to hate homosexuals. Even people of color joined them in their newly-discovered freedom to say the most vile, hateful things, and make the most dishonest accusations. The voices taking them to task for this are mostly in the gay community itself, and the bigots feel completely empowered in their hatred due to a few passages in the christian bible. Never mind that the same old testiment hatred also extends to slaveholding and wife killing. It's god's will to hate gay people. And the hate speech just gets more vituperative.
But even more so, events have conspired to give every American white bigot more freedom to hate than they have had since the heyday of the Klan. From 9/11 to Afghanistan to Iraq to the London Bombing to the Israel/Lebanon war, the dusky-skinned object of American villification and outright hatred are Muslims. In the five years since 20 Muslim men flew the airliners into the buildings, we have gone from "Arab Terrorists" to Jihadis to Islamofascists. To the point, now, where there has been a complete conflation of "Islam", "Muslim" and "Terrorist". And because we are "at war", it is perfectly alright to indulge in the worst kind of murderous, eliminationist rhetoric. To act in the egregiously foul and unfair fashion, from calling for Racial Profiling of Muslims to holding "pig races" to disrupt their worship. It is as if there is absolutely no limit to what one can do to hurt, insult or offend a muslim person, even if they happen to be Americans.
It's shocking, this gleeful intolerance and joyous hostility. It seems at this point that there is nothing a muslim can do that will not attract a good American Christian's outrage and bile. It might be a newly elected congressman choosing what holy book to pose with after the swearing in ceremony. It might be a peaceful American muslim community with a desire to build a house of worship on property they own. It might be something so small as a Senator's middle name - as in Barack
Hussein Obama. But all this hatred and hostility is leading us somewhere. If you smell America in 1942, Stalin's Russia in 1926 or the choking, greasy black smoke from Bergen/Belsen camps, perhaps it's time to speak out.
Let's be clear. There are Islamic Terrorists who want to cause harm to America. We can argue about the root cause of their anger towards the west, but the fact of their existence and goals cannot be argued. But it is a small threat, one that can be managed by smart people enacting rational policies. But it is not the entire faith of Islam that we need to fear and hate. A muslim person is a human, with the same needs and desires as any other person. Sure, I have a disdain bordering on contempt for any religious mythology, but the people who hold these views don't deserve our hatred or our hostility. We are not at war with an entire religion. And they are not at war with us. What you are seeing here speaks less to who or what muslims represent, and more to the kind of people we are becoming.
