[ sm ]
I have been thinking about how to explain the current crisis in Iran for more than a week now. As usual, when mundane minds hesitate, we are passed by our superiors, and so I see that Victor Davis Hanson has put up his own well-done article. Yet for all the salient points he makes in his column, titled “The not-so-mad mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”, I find I must disagree with the Stanford historian on certain important points. Certainly I agree that Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous man, and the threat from Iran must be taken as a grave danger. However, I do not agree that Ahmadinejad is not mad; he certainly is separated from a functional perception of Reality. Where Dr. Hanson contends that Ahmadinejad is not mad but is dangerous, I submit that the President of Iran is quite mad by any reasonable standard, but he is not stupid or foolish. That is to say, Ahmadinejad has been fully briefed on the various nations’ capabilities, he is experienced in the region’s politics, and he understands the difference between what his rhetoric promises and his regime can deliver. The difference between these perspectives is critical to the decision of the best response America can make.
One thing which must be understood is the reason for Ahmadinejad’s threats and prophecies. There are two errors which must be avoided by the West. One mistake would be to class Ahmadinejad’s noise as mere bluster, typical of the “Death To America” screeds which followed the 1979 Revolution. Iran had actually toned down its speeches and denouncements after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, especially after the fall of Baghdad, but has renewed hostility in recent months, especially with regard to its nuclear program. Also, Ahmadinejad’s election as President signals the regime’s determination to pursue a course not only opposed to the United States, but quite likely one to lead to conflict in force. Too many people forget that Iran was willing to attack U.S. Navy vessels when they escorted Kuwaiti tankers during the late 1980s, and too many people fail to understand the financing and support systems Iran created to enable and deploy terrorist organizations. Americans may not be impressed with Iran’s relative success at low-intensity warfare, but Iran believes it can fight the United States and win, provided it dictates the terrain, context, and scale. A pistol aimed at the head of a helpless hostage is more than a fond memory for Ahmadinejad; it neatly describes the Foreign Policy of the Revolutionary Jihadists in Teheran.
The second error however, would be to allow Ahmadinejad victory by granting him too much credence in his fantasies. Iran has made some serious mistakes in its policies since the Revolution, not least because Sharia does not fare well in real-world conditions. One significant reason for the radical shift in Iran’s public pronouncements is the growing momentum for Democracy in the Middle East. Free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, women actually voting, public schools teaching Science and History apart from the supervision of Mullahs, the growth of private businesses, public demonstrations against oppression in Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, even Saudi Arabia, are all seen as signs of a tide moving against the will of Jihad. The anger from Ahmadinejad and his government is as much from desperation as from confidence; he sees the work of a generation slipping away, the dream of Jihadist Triumph paid by the blood of infidels lost to the vision of Arab Democracy, compulsory prayer five times a day defeated by the ideal of people choosing how to believe and how to practice their personal belief. The Reformation of Islam, so long overdue, is seen by Ahmadinejad and his regime as a fatal threat to the Prophet. The best strategy against Ahmadinejad therefore, includes keeping the pressure of such a Reformation fresh and strong before him, attacking him where he is weakest and where the best hope for the Muslim world may be found.
Before going further, it would also be worthwhile to examine the scale and feasibility of the Iranian threat. The problems for Iran are rather significant, if their stated desire to destroy Israel and the United States are to be accomplished. For one thing, it appears reasonable at this time to say that Iran does not yet have a nuclear bomb. This is a very big point in the matter, in part because making a nuke is not so simple as some would have you believe, nor is having a nuclear bomb quite the advancement some thought. Or to put it another way, one should ask just why Ahmadinejad thinks having a nuclear weapon will make a difference. And to do that, we need to consider the limited perspective of History as Ahmadinejad sees it.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sees his opportunity through the malaise of the West shown during the 1970s and 1990s. That much is clear. The rise of OPEC and the growth of small terrorist bands into global organizations are much-cherished glories in the mind of the radical Muslim, and give hope for greater victories to come, in the mold of Iran, Somalia, and naturally Vietnam. In a way, it is fascinating to see how much of the old Soviet dialectic finds its way into the thinking of the Jihadist – ‘wait long enough, and our enemy will grow weak’ seems to be the motto of their strategy. To move this process along, the Jihadist chooses only to strike soft targets, to try to weaken Western resolve, and to deny all evidence of the evil of Jihadist actions and intentions. And in the face of Television and the Press, the Jihadists come to believe they are winning the war. It’s only a matter of time, they assure each other.
But Ahmadinejad has problems in his plan, demonstrated by the periodic revival of Western resolve, and the undeniable superiority of American might. He shows no sign of acknowledging what a Reagan, a Thatcher, or a Dubya could mean to upsetting his plans. He could and should consider how previous high-profile troublemakers, like Qaddafi, Hussein, or even bin Laden fared once the U.S. decided to face them down. For all his annoying taped messages, after all, exactly what has Osama bin Hiding accomplished since 9/11? A reasonable person might warn Ahmadinedjad that calling out the West can sometimes be like waving a steak at a Rottweiler.
But even more to the point, it appears that Ahmadinejad wants to be yet another leader in the ‘Mahdi’ mold. He has not, however, considered the fate of all the prior would-be Mahdis. Instead, Ahmadinejad continues to ignore the inconvenient, and assume the best-case scenario will play out. That’s probably because Ahmadinejad’s plans have three stages, and he doesn’t believe he needs much luck to make them work.
Step one for Ahmadinejad is simple but difficult – get a nuclear bomb. The reason he wants one, is not because he plans to nuke Israel. Oh yes, he would love to do it, but it would take a stockpile to do the job, along with missiles that could reach the targets, and never mind the question of accuracy. Iran does not have missiles with the range or accuracy they would need, and as for bombers, the situation is even weaker. Iran does not have an air force worthy of the name; any attempt to attack Israel by bomber will only lead to the loss of every Iranian bomber. This means that in addition to developing the weapon, Iran must develop a delivery system, as well as a stockpile sufficient to the campaign along with the security needed to protect each part of the system. Knowing this, Ahmadinejad must be planning something other than an immediate immolation of Tel Aviv.
The obvious thought pops up, that Ahmadinejad could simply smuggle a nuke into Israel and detonate it via a suicide bomber. The problem there, is that such an attack could not reasonably coordinated in such a way as to destroy more than 3 or 4 locations, and probably nothing in a way which could disrupt the IDF’s own nuclear threat. And Ahmadinejad is not stupid enough to forget the Samson Option – the well-known threat by Israel that a nuclear attack on Israel would result in the use of Israeli nuclear missiles on every Arab capital or holy city. No matter how much the Jihadists would like to destroy Israel, they would not be willing to destroy themselves, especially their holy cities of Mecca and Medina, to do so. For all their bluster, the leaders of the Jihad are seldom willing to die for their cause. Kill yes, torture certainly, but they themselves are unlikely to accept their own death as the cost of victory.
Another point most people forget, is that Iran has Chemical and Biological WMD. It would be easy for Iran to attack Israel with the WMD already on hand, to say nothing of not bothering neighboring countries with the dangers of fallout from a nuclear volley. That has not happened either, possibly for reason of that same retaliatory threat from Israel, but also because attempting to out-and-out destroy a country by killing everyone in it is not only very difficult from a pragmatic perspective, but it also is all but impossible to justify. Such an attempt, Ahmadinejad knows, could easily create a global backlash against the Arab world and in support of Israel.
Consequently, Ahmadinejad has a longer plan, if also a slower one. By declaring that the Iranian Nuclear reactors are peaceful, Ahmadinajad hopes to generate sympathy for Iran among other nations excluded from the “Nuclear Club”, and so build a coalition of his own to stand against the greater powers. Trade agreements with China not only provide revenue for Iran and encourage China to support Iran in the United Nations, but also help Iran grow closer in its plans to foment insurrection along the China border later on. Most people are unaware of the growing Jihadist threat along China’s Southwest flank, which also could act against India if needed. The Jihadist threat against Russia can be demonstrated by a look at the difficulty posed by Chechnya, which now suffers from a number of active Al Qaeda cells. Add to that the unrest in France and Germany, and it is not difficult to see why Ahmadinejad believes that Iran’s long term strategy will work, keeping Europe and Asia out of the matter when Iran chooses to attack Israel. For now, it seems a simple measure for Iran to demand Europe and Asia not block its access to “peaceful” nuclear power, even though this means a bomb in a matter of two or three years. Also during this time, terrorist action may be expected to try to destabilize Saudi Arabia, either to crate an additional Jihadist regime or to force financial backing for an expanded Jihad.
Once Iran has the bomb, Ahmadinejad will test it, as a warning sign to the Unted States, and a ballistic missile capable of reaching the Gulf or the Mediterranean will be the next order or business. At some point, the missile will be test-fired into waters where U.S. aircraft carriers often travel, and the U.S. will be warned that Iran will not allow trespass. This does not mean that Ahmadinejad will seek direct confrontation with a carrier group, but he will hope to intimidate the United States, especially if this occurs after Bush leaves office. In similar fashion, Iran will make a number of statements forcing regional governments to choose a side, with the implication that anyone opposing Iran will stand alone and at significant danger. The deployment of terrorist cells may be expected to be timed to these announcements. Also, a regional alliance consisting of Iran, Syria, and at least one more Middle East power may be announced at this time. A strong effort will likely be made to create a military alliance on the order of OPEC. Provocations against Israel will also occur.
Essentially, the first two steps require finding a way to force the United States and Israel to back off pressure on Iran, while the Jihad builds regional support. The third step begins when Iran believes it has the means to invade a major regional power, such as Turkey or Egypt. When this happens, the Iran-led alliance will find a pretext to invade Israel, ostensibly on behalf of the Palestinians but actually to fulfill Ahmadinejad’s promise to wipe Israel off the map. The eventual war against the United States will depend on the acquisition of WMD sufficient to destroy a number of critical junctures, though in actual fact victory conditions for the Iranians would simply be to force de facto recognition of an Arab superstate in the Middle East, the long-awaited Caliphate.
Intimidating as this sounds, it has a rather large number of weak points and assumptions, and failure at any of several critical points would collapse the whole plan. The obvious problems for Ahmadinejad begin with the fact that Iran is not behind him on this plan. The average Iranian couldn’t care less whether Israel is destroyed or not, and he has little interest in fighting in a war that doesn’t have to happen. The young are demanding political reform, the women are demanding the vote, and the veterans from the old Iran-Iraq war are demanding a better sense of how to avoid killing off an entire generation of men. And that doesn’t include the people who could be interested in a counter-revolution against the Mullahs. One of the more ironic dangers for Iran in trying to develop a nuclear bomb, is the possibility that rebels could seize the weapon and use it against the regime.
And then there is Iraq. A rebuilt Iraq with a sense of its new independence is not likely to smile on a Jihadist neighbor, especially one with a violent history and threatening words. The war between Khomeini and Hussein was a very bad thing for both countries, but a new war between the two could be much bloodier. During the first Gulf War, there was fear that a weakened Iraq might be invaded by Iran. The possibility that Iraq, with or even without U.S. backing, might invade Iran must also be considered. There are real reasons why this would make sense to Iraq, and Iran has to plan how to prevent this possibility.
Also in play is Afghanistan. President Bush understood the Afghans in a way the British and Russians never did, and ironically the Iranians also have failed to grasp. In some ways the Afghans are very much like the Turks, absolutely relentless as an enemy, but absolutely trustworthy as a friend. The United States could not convince Afghanistan to attack Iran, but at the same time Afghanistan is highly unlikely to support an Iran-led alliance. This is a real problem for Iran’s long-term plans in the region, especially if Afghanistan sends an ultimatum of its own to Teheran, which is not as unlikely as some people think. The Afghans play Chess the old-school way: Shah Mat.
All this may help to explain why the United States is taking the tack it has. In the first place, Iran has a longer road than it pretends. Also, the U.S. sees no advantage in doing what Iran expects it to do, especially since the U.S. has options that Iran cannot prevent. Third, the U.S. has long-term goals of its own in play, and if these succeed, Iran will be in a bad way to prevent the dissolution of the Mullahs’ control. It’s a very dangerous business, but for more than one side.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Who IS the 'Jack Bauer' of Blogging?
[ - bang - ]
As I drove home from work yesterday, I listened to Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and Hugh turns out to be a fan of "24". So much so, that he readily accepted the nomination, which he says was tagged by blogger Frater's Libertas, as the "Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere". Chad the Elder wrote in response that he actually dubbed Hugh as "the Jack Abramoff of talk radio and the blogosphere".
Heh.
I don't know that I would be linking respectable and intelligent people with Abramoff right about now, but I have to agree with Chad that Hugh is not the Bauer model. I like Hewitt, and he's spot-on with some of his insights, but sorry Hugh, you're no Jack Bauer. If nothing else, the fact that you are a lawyer disqualifies you. Could anyone imagine Jack Bauer with a law degree? Please.
But it raises a good question. Just who, in the Blogosphere, is our Jack Bauer? Without saying at the start who I think fills the bill, here's how I see the role:
1. He's male. Sorry ladies, but this gun-toting, do-what-a-patriot's-gotta-do guy is focused testosterone. This ain't Siegfried and Roy, this ain't Dr. Phil, and any woman pulling the kind of stuff we see Bauer doing in "24" would look more like "Xena" than a counter-terrorism agent.
2. He's decisive. No one who can be connected to a focus group or committee need apply.
3. He's not PC. Bauer does what is required, and is not subtle about it.
4. Despite being violent a lot, Bauer is not crazy or bloodthirsty. He does what is necessary, but holds his fire, and is willing to let even terrorists live if they surrender. That rules out DU or Daily Kos, even if they could accept being on the same side as Bauer.
5. Bauer is in such deep cover, most people think he's dead. Talk about controlling your ego. That rules out Rush, most talk show hosts and columnists, and anyone who has voluntarily appeared on Leno or Letterman.
6. Bauer knows guns. And uses them often. This rules out anyone from the State Department or the United Nations, or their advocates.
7. Bauer is indestructible. In a previous season, Bauer freaking died, someone got his heart started again and by the end of the episode Bauer was kicking bad guys in the groin as hard as ever.
8. Bauer always knows what's about to happen. As a result, he has a few seconds to plan his actions, which only appear to be impossible.
9. Bauer trusts the right people. He instinctively knows the traitors and low-lifes, but depends on the ones he knows are stand-up.
10. Bauer gets results. Compromise is useless.
So, with that in mind, who is the Blogosphere's "Jack Bauer"?
Please include reasons with your nomination(s).
As I drove home from work yesterday, I listened to Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and Hugh turns out to be a fan of "24". So much so, that he readily accepted the nomination, which he says was tagged by blogger Frater's Libertas, as the "Jack Bauer of the Blogosphere". Chad the Elder wrote in response that he actually dubbed Hugh as "the Jack Abramoff of talk radio and the blogosphere".
Heh.
I don't know that I would be linking respectable and intelligent people with Abramoff right about now, but I have to agree with Chad that Hugh is not the Bauer model. I like Hewitt, and he's spot-on with some of his insights, but sorry Hugh, you're no Jack Bauer. If nothing else, the fact that you are a lawyer disqualifies you. Could anyone imagine Jack Bauer with a law degree? Please.
But it raises a good question. Just who, in the Blogosphere, is our Jack Bauer? Without saying at the start who I think fills the bill, here's how I see the role:
1. He's male. Sorry ladies, but this gun-toting, do-what-a-patriot's-gotta-do guy is focused testosterone. This ain't Siegfried and Roy, this ain't Dr. Phil, and any woman pulling the kind of stuff we see Bauer doing in "24" would look more like "Xena" than a counter-terrorism agent.
2. He's decisive. No one who can be connected to a focus group or committee need apply.
3. He's not PC. Bauer does what is required, and is not subtle about it.
4. Despite being violent a lot, Bauer is not crazy or bloodthirsty. He does what is necessary, but holds his fire, and is willing to let even terrorists live if they surrender. That rules out DU or Daily Kos, even if they could accept being on the same side as Bauer.
5. Bauer is in such deep cover, most people think he's dead. Talk about controlling your ego. That rules out Rush, most talk show hosts and columnists, and anyone who has voluntarily appeared on Leno or Letterman.
6. Bauer knows guns. And uses them often. This rules out anyone from the State Department or the United Nations, or their advocates.
7. Bauer is indestructible. In a previous season, Bauer freaking died, someone got his heart started again and by the end of the episode Bauer was kicking bad guys in the groin as hard as ever.
8. Bauer always knows what's about to happen. As a result, he has a few seconds to plan his actions, which only appear to be impossible.
9. Bauer trusts the right people. He instinctively knows the traitors and low-lifes, but depends on the ones he knows are stand-up.
10. Bauer gets results. Compromise is useless.
So, with that in mind, who is the Blogosphere's "Jack Bauer"?
Please include reasons with your nomination(s).
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
The American Dream
[ +++ ]
I read Kay Hymowitz’ column while I drank my morning coffee and ignored my e-mail. The article, titled “Marriage and Caste”, argued for the need for a woman to have a marriage, but also touched on the concern about “whether the American Dream is within the reach of all.” That struck a chord, in no small part because Ms. Hymowitz never defined the Dream for her audience, and that seems to me a significant point of contention.
Everyone dreams about something, but even for a particular individual, those dreams may change over time. For instance, I have at various times dreamed of wealth, fame, romance, or simply to avoid disaster at work, with the law, or with my family. So to mention “the” dream, is to imply that there is one ubiquitous desire for everyone, and to dub it the “American Dream” is to suggest a unique quality to the dream apart from the human condition. So that is my starting point, to re-examine the nature and elements of the American Dream.
In the Declaration of Independence, the Congress concurred that Man holds rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. While various legislatures and demagogues have wrought havoc on those basic presumptions over the years, the basic rights are still pretty simple, especially the fact that we enjoy the right to chase Happiness; there is no guarantee we shall have it.
And yet there is a kind of joy to such a pursuit. Anyone who has played sports knows the thrill of contest, and anyone who has completed a difficult project knows the satisfaction of accomplishment. And it is critical to understand that the dream can be the same, even when it is different for each person.
In my life I have met an Indian woman who whose dream was to choose her husband. I met a Muslim whose personal proof of the mercy of God was having his wife and daughter in his life. I met a Baptist who wanted to run in the Olympics. I know a Sikh who wants to get his novel published. I am friends with a guy who wants his son to play for the Astros. And I know a guy running for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Some of these people have already fulfilled their dream, others are working on it. Some will never succeed at their dream, but the point is they are able to try. As for myself, I am looking for a publisher for two novels, as well as going after my MBA. Maybe it will happen, maybe not, but the truth about the American Dream, is that I can try. Shoot, I have already become internationally known as a blogger, mistaken for an authority on a couple subjects, and I have as fine a wife and family as I could ever have asked God to grant me.
OK, so some of the more cynical will stop and say, 'yeah, duck the issue DJ. The fact is, some people got money and always will, others never will.' To them I ask, is money all you know? Because money will not make a happy marriage, give you purpose, or help you sleep at night, knowing you made a difference in someone’s life.
But even if money is the all-important thing to you, nowhere is the field more level, the roster more open to everyone than in America. You can open a business of virtually any kind, virtually anywhere, and we actually have a decent set of laws which work well to a surprising degree, to protect intellectual rights, property, consumers and workers. Yes, there will always be some who are richer than their efforts deserved, but in America more people make their fortune than anywhere else. Yes, it means accepting risks and an inconstant climate, but no one said you get to coast to success. It’s the American Dream, not the Yankee Comfy Nap.
Pick a dream. Chase it. See what happens.
I read Kay Hymowitz’ column while I drank my morning coffee and ignored my e-mail. The article, titled “Marriage and Caste”, argued for the need for a woman to have a marriage, but also touched on the concern about “whether the American Dream is within the reach of all.” That struck a chord, in no small part because Ms. Hymowitz never defined the Dream for her audience, and that seems to me a significant point of contention.
Everyone dreams about something, but even for a particular individual, those dreams may change over time. For instance, I have at various times dreamed of wealth, fame, romance, or simply to avoid disaster at work, with the law, or with my family. So to mention “the” dream, is to imply that there is one ubiquitous desire for everyone, and to dub it the “American Dream” is to suggest a unique quality to the dream apart from the human condition. So that is my starting point, to re-examine the nature and elements of the American Dream.
In the Declaration of Independence, the Congress concurred that Man holds rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. While various legislatures and demagogues have wrought havoc on those basic presumptions over the years, the basic rights are still pretty simple, especially the fact that we enjoy the right to chase Happiness; there is no guarantee we shall have it.
And yet there is a kind of joy to such a pursuit. Anyone who has played sports knows the thrill of contest, and anyone who has completed a difficult project knows the satisfaction of accomplishment. And it is critical to understand that the dream can be the same, even when it is different for each person.
In my life I have met an Indian woman who whose dream was to choose her husband. I met a Muslim whose personal proof of the mercy of God was having his wife and daughter in his life. I met a Baptist who wanted to run in the Olympics. I know a Sikh who wants to get his novel published. I am friends with a guy who wants his son to play for the Astros. And I know a guy running for the U.S. House of Representatives.
Some of these people have already fulfilled their dream, others are working on it. Some will never succeed at their dream, but the point is they are able to try. As for myself, I am looking for a publisher for two novels, as well as going after my MBA. Maybe it will happen, maybe not, but the truth about the American Dream, is that I can try. Shoot, I have already become internationally known as a blogger, mistaken for an authority on a couple subjects, and I have as fine a wife and family as I could ever have asked God to grant me.
OK, so some of the more cynical will stop and say, 'yeah, duck the issue DJ. The fact is, some people got money and always will, others never will.' To them I ask, is money all you know? Because money will not make a happy marriage, give you purpose, or help you sleep at night, knowing you made a difference in someone’s life.
But even if money is the all-important thing to you, nowhere is the field more level, the roster more open to everyone than in America. You can open a business of virtually any kind, virtually anywhere, and we actually have a decent set of laws which work well to a surprising degree, to protect intellectual rights, property, consumers and workers. Yes, there will always be some who are richer than their efforts deserved, but in America more people make their fortune than anywhere else. Yes, it means accepting risks and an inconstant climate, but no one said you get to coast to success. It’s the American Dream, not the Yankee Comfy Nap.
Pick a dream. Chase it. See what happens.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Using Intelligence – the N.E.S.T.
[ . . . ]
Paul Holman* was on his way to work in Baltimore one early morning in January 2005, driving to a power plant run by Baltimore Gas & Electric, when his pager went off. The pager was a special one, and it flashed a number with a code warning Holman he needed to find a Secure Telephone Unit (STU) before making the call. When Holman called in, he was directed to immediately proceed to Boston to meet with four other members of his team. Four Chinese nationals and two Iraqis were alleged to have smuggled an unknown amount of radioactive material into the city of Boston, and it was the job of Holman’s team to find the material, and determine whether a nuclear bomb had been made. The Boston Police, FBI, bomb-sniffing dogs, and even the Boston office of the DHS were put at the team’s discretion.
Paul is a member of a NEST, or Nuclear Emergency Search Team. NESTs are controlled and directed by the Department of Energy, and exist solely to find and defuse nuclear threats. As part of its job, a NEST has to have real-time intelligence information, and immediate access to the resources needed to act on tips and clues. A NEST can be deployed by the “DP-20 Duty Officer” from the DOE field office in Nevada, by the Office of Threat Assessment, by direct order from the Secretary of Energy, or by order from the National Command Authority (NCA) – the President of the United States or his designated case officer. In such an event, a team will be mobilized to act in the area of crisis. This field team is formally known as an Operational Emergency Management Team (OEMT), but to law enforcement they usually also refer to themselves as NEST to avoid confusion. There will be a Team Leader (TL/DOE), who will be in charge and report actions and events to the NEST Director and the Energy Secretary, and where appropriate, the NCA.
The number and specific qualifications of NEST members is classified information, but NEST members are distinctive for expertise in nuclear materials and explosives. So, in addition to members with military and law enforcement experience, especially in bomb disposal, NESTs also include white-collar professionals like Paul, whose specific knowledge applies not only to day-to-day operation of such mundane responsibilities as electricity transmission grids, but also the radiation characteristics of enriched material. So, it is possible that if you work in the utilities field, or in scientific research, you may personally know someone whose responsibilities include protecting the country from a nuclear terrorist threat. While the government will neither confirm nor deny the contention, it is believed that similar teams exist to deal with Chemical and Biological threats, managed by DHS under the heading "Domestic Emergency Search Team", or DEST . At least twenty discrete NEST groups are believed to have been established in the continental United States, usually located in or near major cities, especially where nuclear power plants are in operation.
In the actual event in January 2005, no bomb turned out to exist after a four-day search, nor was any radioactive material found in the Boston area. Even so, the deployment was valuable experience for the NEST, who were debriefed by DOE and the FBI before returning to their regular duties. These debriefings are critically important, as in each case there are things which go right, and things which go wrong. In one previous event, a NEST discovered a stored sample of radioactive waste which had no connection to the threat, but for a time generated significant concern. On another occasion, a suspect claimed to be able to detonate a “dirty” radioactive bomb by remote control, complicating the search operation. Learning from such difficulties improves the teams’ ability to address the next incident.
In terms of Intelligence, NESTs are examples of “Right Now” Intelligence – data which not only has to be accurate, but specific and fast. They didn’t say, but I’d be willing to bet that in a NEST deployment, no one bothers with warrants.
* Not his real name
Paul Holman* was on his way to work in Baltimore one early morning in January 2005, driving to a power plant run by Baltimore Gas & Electric, when his pager went off. The pager was a special one, and it flashed a number with a code warning Holman he needed to find a Secure Telephone Unit (STU) before making the call. When Holman called in, he was directed to immediately proceed to Boston to meet with four other members of his team. Four Chinese nationals and two Iraqis were alleged to have smuggled an unknown amount of radioactive material into the city of Boston, and it was the job of Holman’s team to find the material, and determine whether a nuclear bomb had been made. The Boston Police, FBI, bomb-sniffing dogs, and even the Boston office of the DHS were put at the team’s discretion.
Paul is a member of a NEST, or Nuclear Emergency Search Team. NESTs are controlled and directed by the Department of Energy, and exist solely to find and defuse nuclear threats. As part of its job, a NEST has to have real-time intelligence information, and immediate access to the resources needed to act on tips and clues. A NEST can be deployed by the “DP-20 Duty Officer” from the DOE field office in Nevada, by the Office of Threat Assessment, by direct order from the Secretary of Energy, or by order from the National Command Authority (NCA) – the President of the United States or his designated case officer. In such an event, a team will be mobilized to act in the area of crisis. This field team is formally known as an Operational Emergency Management Team (OEMT), but to law enforcement they usually also refer to themselves as NEST to avoid confusion. There will be a Team Leader (TL/DOE), who will be in charge and report actions and events to the NEST Director and the Energy Secretary, and where appropriate, the NCA.
The number and specific qualifications of NEST members is classified information, but NEST members are distinctive for expertise in nuclear materials and explosives. So, in addition to members with military and law enforcement experience, especially in bomb disposal, NESTs also include white-collar professionals like Paul, whose specific knowledge applies not only to day-to-day operation of such mundane responsibilities as electricity transmission grids, but also the radiation characteristics of enriched material. So, it is possible that if you work in the utilities field, or in scientific research, you may personally know someone whose responsibilities include protecting the country from a nuclear terrorist threat. While the government will neither confirm nor deny the contention, it is believed that similar teams exist to deal with Chemical and Biological threats, managed by DHS under the heading "Domestic Emergency Search Team", or DEST . At least twenty discrete NEST groups are believed to have been established in the continental United States, usually located in or near major cities, especially where nuclear power plants are in operation.
In the actual event in January 2005, no bomb turned out to exist after a four-day search, nor was any radioactive material found in the Boston area. Even so, the deployment was valuable experience for the NEST, who were debriefed by DOE and the FBI before returning to their regular duties. These debriefings are critically important, as in each case there are things which go right, and things which go wrong. In one previous event, a NEST discovered a stored sample of radioactive waste which had no connection to the threat, but for a time generated significant concern. On another occasion, a suspect claimed to be able to detonate a “dirty” radioactive bomb by remote control, complicating the search operation. Learning from such difficulties improves the teams’ ability to address the next incident.
In terms of Intelligence, NESTs are examples of “Right Now” Intelligence – data which not only has to be accurate, but specific and fast. They didn’t say, but I’d be willing to bet that in a NEST deployment, no one bothers with warrants.
* Not his real name
Monday, January 16, 2006
The Red Pen – Correcting More Liberal Inaccuracies
[ xxx ]
Niall Ferguson has an interesting article written up in the Telegraph. Interesting, but largely wrong. The opinion piece, titled “The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented” appears on the surface to be in support of the Bush Doctrine of pre-empting catastrophic threat. But the author makes so many mistakes, in historical fact as well as in his conclusions, that the piece must be redressed on something better than Ferguson’s rhetorical swagger.
Historians, as a rule, like to feel important. This is a common characteristic which shows up in their narration of events, as though they understood things better than the average fellow, a condition which is seldom true of academics. Also, it is my experience that a proper student of History should always consult more than one point of view, to avoid the errors which bias, however unintended, always displays on a version which accepts only one perspective. To that end, I will address the gist of Ferguson’s contentions, with emphasis on his errors and the proper correction to them, as I see it.
The first error by Ferguson is this statement: “The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.”
To begin with, anyone who knows the history of the late 1960s through the 1970s understands that the heyday of oil’s strategic value was before the Reagan era. Ferguson mistakes the prevalent use of oil by emerging industrial nations, and the continued consumer reliance on oil, as indicators of potential global crisis. However, the far more serious OPEC embargoes, especially during the Carter Administration, impacted the world economy in ways which are not possible today, not only because of improvement in alternative sources for petroleum, but also because governments and industries were forced to accept the need for far greater efficiency and diversified processes. Ferguson’s note about oil prices during the 1990s ironically misses two salient points – first, low oil prices have been the exception rather than the rule for the past half-century, and second, prices were so low in the 1990s because the improvements in diverse sources, efficiency, and alternative processes created a relatively low demand for OPEC oil in specific. OPEC addressed this by expanding its membership, paying close attention to market conditions, and by understanding that the most efficient alternatives would be shelved by high availability and low prices. In other words, sound business practices were more effective and beneficial for OPEC than political brinksmanship. It is not, to be blunt, in OPEC’s interest to allow any one nation or player disrupt the flow of oil, because to do so would damage OPEC to a far greater extent than it might gain. Accordingly, Iran will lose friends in OPEC if it tries to use Oil as a political weapon, to such a point that it is possible for OPEC to do an end-run to keep supplies moving. This removes the 'crisis'value of Oil in terms of sparking a global conflagration. Ferguson is reliving old history and has failed to observe policy and industry changes which have set a different course under such a scenario.
Ferguson’s next error was demographics, comparing Muslim fertility to European fertility. Ferguson notes that the population explosion in Iran led to “a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.”
Again, this is a serious mistake by Ferguson. He even manages to mention the devastating casualties suffered in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, without once considering the social effects of such a war on the support for a war of conquest. Ferguson also fails to note the rise of youth protests against Iran’s repressive government and policies. Ferguson does not seem to have considered that arming large groups of Iranian men and training them to fight, could result in a massive revolt against the Mullahs. In an age where rebels can communicate through cell phones, faxes, websites, e-mail, and many other hard-to-block, hard-to-track technologies, dismissing the potential of insurrection is foolish. Especially against a regime which advocates extreme policies for the perceived benefit only to themselves.
Ferguson makes a telling error in his next statement, claiming “people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.”
More than anywhere else in the article, Ferguson here identifies himself as a Liberal, and demonstrates a filtered perspective of the region. This statement not only locks Ferguson into the obsolete political thinking of the Stalin v. Eisenhower era, but also defines him firmly as a 'September 10th' historian. Ferguson is blissfully unaware that the 2002-present military actions were not meant to impose a Western will on the Arab world, but to remove a global threat – international terrorists created, trained, supported and sponsored by Arab factions and governments. The Coalition did not invade Afghanistan in hopes of creating a regime submissive to their policies, but to take out Al Qaeda. The Coalition did not invade Iraq in order to turn the place into a docile colony, but to remove a despot who was known to have used WMD on another country, and on minorities in his own nation. For Ferguson to have missed this essential point is appalling, and demonstrates a basic flaw in his logic.
Ferguson then lays out his third “precondition for war: cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.
Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.”
This is another stupendous blunder, to be frank. In the first place, Ferguson glosses over the fact that most Arabs and Muslims wanted no part of the radical Jihadism pushed by the likes of Khomeini. Even an overview of the Arab Culture reveals sharp divisions between the way Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, and other Middle Eastern nationalities see their region and responsibilities. Ferguson even fails to observe the waves of repression versus reform demands in Iran, as the country struggles to decide whether the majority of people will be able to take back their nation. Ferguson forgets that Khomeini’s power came not from genuine support by the Iranian people, but through manipulation of events to establish his minority sect in the seat of power, one dictator simply replacing another. There are quite literally millions of Iranians who would like see a government which represents the Iranian heart and mind as it is, not in the image cast by a Shah or an Ayatollah, especially given recent history.
As to Europe, let us never forget Fabrizio Quattrocchi, who was kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in 2004, yet shouted defiantly on camera “This is how an Italian dies!” Such is hardly the act of a man void of ideals or courage.
When terrorist bastards blew up buses and trains in London, the result only hardened resolve and diligence, bringing support even from countries like China. It can therefore hardly be said that terrorism is dissolving alliances and commitment to international security. It’s especially worth noting that the main reaction by British Muslims was to denounce terrorism and offer to help catch the men who did it. Ferguson would do well to observe that many more Muslims are appalled and revolted by the tactics of terrorists, than ever would applaud such actions.
When Jihadist terrorists murdered hundreds of children held hostage in a school at Beslan, the response was not submission or a massive repression. Even though the Russian occupation of Chechnya is controversial, the Russian response to this atrocity was measured and restrained in context. This demonstrates a level of strategy and resolve beyond Ferguson’s understanding.
These points and others demonstrate the reason why the Coalition remains a viable alliance, despite the misleading publicity given to the few who have cut and run. In plain fact, Europe has not lost its ideals and nerve, and the Jihadists have not gained influence and support to anything like the degree Ferguson pretends. Whether by accident or connivance, Ferguson ignores the overwhelming majority of Middle East people and nations to pretend ascendancy for a militant few. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the region invalidates all assumptions and calculations drawn upon it.
Ferguson casts Iran’s sociopathic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in the role of an Islamic Hitler, and I admit the caricature is appealing to the emotion. Ferguson properly observes the incendiary quality of Ahmadinejad’s claim that the Holocaust was a “myth”. It is correct to voice concern when a national leader describes a neighboring sovereign country as a “disgraceful blot”, to be wiped “off the map”. Yet Ferguson fails to observe the basic question of capability, and of reaction to such an attempt. Ahmadinejad speaks in much the same way as Castro did, and Castro could never make good on his threats. Ferguson seems to just want to inflate the madman's credibility. Ferguson here follows with a series of statements which are dubious or even outright false in their claims. Said Ferguson, about the possibility of removing the Iranian reactor through air strikes;
“The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981.”
This presumes that the United States would wish to use Israel as a proxy, and also that Israel would be inclined to take on such a role. There is no evidence to support either contention.
“Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006.”
Many conservative commentators, including myself, have better imagination and comprehension of the region than that. Ferguson presumes that force would be the most effective response, but in actual fact there is much reason to doubt that opinion. Not only has Iran prepared for an anticipated attack, but also there are strategic choke points which would damage the Iranian programs effectively, without providing an incident that Iran could effectively use as propaganda against the United States. These options include economic sanctions, blockade, and subversive actions against Iran, such as contaminating the uranium stocks used by Iran. Further, the development of nuclear weapons, as Iran doubtless intends to build, depend on a number of crucial requirements, which the U.S. is well-positioned to deny. While such actions are more complex and difficult than simply dropping bombs where we think the plants and materials are kept, in the long run thy could well yield better results. Consider how the average American considered 3 Mile Island, which was never anything but a civilian power plant, and imagine the Iranian response to an accident at a plant designed to make nuclear weapons, which themselves could not be used in anything but a war likely to kill millions of Iranians. Ferguson, like Ahmadinejahd, has not thought this matter through to any great degree.
“The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.”
Ferguson is quite wrong on both counts. It needs saying, yet again, that the inspectors did find weapons in Iraq, though not in the numbers anticipated, but more to the point, they discovered that the WMD programs were still a high priority to Saddam Hussein, and if the invasion had not happened, the development of strategic weapons would indeed have begun again and very quickly. The consensus of those who have seen the evidence is that the invasion was indeed justified and necessary. As to the insurgency, the fact that the men committing the majority of violence are foreign to Iraq disproves the “insurgency” claim. And the fact that the terrorists in Iraq have been more and more turning their guns on Iraqi Army and police instead of U.S. troops since the last two elections in Iraq, demonstrates that this “insurgency” is in fact nothing more than a foreign-supported attempt to prevent genuine self-rule by Iraq; and the results of the past two elections, both with greater-than-predicted levels of participation, shows that Iraq is well on the road to taking care of itself. The U.S. still needs to assist in Iraq, but Ferguson is either lying or has made a colossal blunder in overlooking the general success of the American mission in Iraq.
“As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking.” Ferguson demonstrates that he has no operation knowledge of groups like the SAS or people like the American Director of National Intelligence.
“The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.”
Ferguson demonstrates a complete lack of perception regarding American post-9/11 diplomacy. Rice does not make that mistake. The Bush State Doctrine, as many well know, is not one to allow a threat to grow beyond redress.
Ferguson proceeds down his imaginative fallacy: “The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.”
Failing to understand the U.S. military, Ferguson presumes a nuclear event would be allowed to proceed. Failing to understand the Iraqi identity in the aftermath of free elections, Ferguson assumes that Iraqis would act in the image of a nation almost completely unlike themselves. Failing to perceive the new identity of women and youth in the Middle East, in places like Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, Ferguson fails to understand the present actions behind the scenes in the Middle East, and the importance of true Sovereignty and Self-Determination to the Arab states, Ferguson presumes that the majority would act in imitation of the worst among them. And failing to understand the Chinese Grand Strategy in Southwest Asia, Ferguson does not understand why Beijing will work to rein in Iran, albeit quietly, rather than encourage Jihadist movements which would threaten their own frontiers in short order.
Niall Ferguson does do one service to the matter – he demonstrates how so many people, understanding only one perspective and proceeding from a series of rash assumptions, can oppose the very actions which remove the dangers they fear, and will ridicule the people whose words and plans are better suited to the moment and its challenge. That is, we can be very glad that God has provided us with the likes of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to address such a crisis, instead of the likes of Niall Ferguson. It is a small matter then, that years from now when the events in Iran are seen in retrospect, academics like Ferguson will forget their dire predictions and claim there was never a threat at all, or else that we were providentially spared from the approaching disaster, rather than crediting the plans and foresight of the men and women who faced the crisis. Bloggers like myself will be there to set the record straight, and the people will decide.
Niall Ferguson has an interesting article written up in the Telegraph. Interesting, but largely wrong. The opinion piece, titled “The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented” appears on the surface to be in support of the Bush Doctrine of pre-empting catastrophic threat. But the author makes so many mistakes, in historical fact as well as in his conclusions, that the piece must be redressed on something better than Ferguson’s rhetorical swagger.
Historians, as a rule, like to feel important. This is a common characteristic which shows up in their narration of events, as though they understood things better than the average fellow, a condition which is seldom true of academics. Also, it is my experience that a proper student of History should always consult more than one point of view, to avoid the errors which bias, however unintended, always displays on a version which accepts only one perspective. To that end, I will address the gist of Ferguson’s contentions, with emphasis on his errors and the proper correction to them, as I see it.
The first error by Ferguson is this statement: “The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.”
To begin with, anyone who knows the history of the late 1960s through the 1970s understands that the heyday of oil’s strategic value was before the Reagan era. Ferguson mistakes the prevalent use of oil by emerging industrial nations, and the continued consumer reliance on oil, as indicators of potential global crisis. However, the far more serious OPEC embargoes, especially during the Carter Administration, impacted the world economy in ways which are not possible today, not only because of improvement in alternative sources for petroleum, but also because governments and industries were forced to accept the need for far greater efficiency and diversified processes. Ferguson’s note about oil prices during the 1990s ironically misses two salient points – first, low oil prices have been the exception rather than the rule for the past half-century, and second, prices were so low in the 1990s because the improvements in diverse sources, efficiency, and alternative processes created a relatively low demand for OPEC oil in specific. OPEC addressed this by expanding its membership, paying close attention to market conditions, and by understanding that the most efficient alternatives would be shelved by high availability and low prices. In other words, sound business practices were more effective and beneficial for OPEC than political brinksmanship. It is not, to be blunt, in OPEC’s interest to allow any one nation or player disrupt the flow of oil, because to do so would damage OPEC to a far greater extent than it might gain. Accordingly, Iran will lose friends in OPEC if it tries to use Oil as a political weapon, to such a point that it is possible for OPEC to do an end-run to keep supplies moving. This removes the 'crisis'value of Oil in terms of sparking a global conflagration. Ferguson is reliving old history and has failed to observe policy and industry changes which have set a different course under such a scenario.
Ferguson’s next error was demographics, comparing Muslim fertility to European fertility. Ferguson notes that the population explosion in Iran led to “a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.”
Again, this is a serious mistake by Ferguson. He even manages to mention the devastating casualties suffered in the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, without once considering the social effects of such a war on the support for a war of conquest. Ferguson also fails to note the rise of youth protests against Iran’s repressive government and policies. Ferguson does not seem to have considered that arming large groups of Iranian men and training them to fight, could result in a massive revolt against the Mullahs. In an age where rebels can communicate through cell phones, faxes, websites, e-mail, and many other hard-to-block, hard-to-track technologies, dismissing the potential of insurrection is foolish. Especially against a regime which advocates extreme policies for the perceived benefit only to themselves.
Ferguson makes a telling error in his next statement, claiming “people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.”
More than anywhere else in the article, Ferguson here identifies himself as a Liberal, and demonstrates a filtered perspective of the region. This statement not only locks Ferguson into the obsolete political thinking of the Stalin v. Eisenhower era, but also defines him firmly as a 'September 10th' historian. Ferguson is blissfully unaware that the 2002-present military actions were not meant to impose a Western will on the Arab world, but to remove a global threat – international terrorists created, trained, supported and sponsored by Arab factions and governments. The Coalition did not invade Afghanistan in hopes of creating a regime submissive to their policies, but to take out Al Qaeda. The Coalition did not invade Iraq in order to turn the place into a docile colony, but to remove a despot who was known to have used WMD on another country, and on minorities in his own nation. For Ferguson to have missed this essential point is appalling, and demonstrates a basic flaw in his logic.
Ferguson then lays out his third “precondition for war: cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.
Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.”
This is another stupendous blunder, to be frank. In the first place, Ferguson glosses over the fact that most Arabs and Muslims wanted no part of the radical Jihadism pushed by the likes of Khomeini. Even an overview of the Arab Culture reveals sharp divisions between the way Turks, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, and other Middle Eastern nationalities see their region and responsibilities. Ferguson even fails to observe the waves of repression versus reform demands in Iran, as the country struggles to decide whether the majority of people will be able to take back their nation. Ferguson forgets that Khomeini’s power came not from genuine support by the Iranian people, but through manipulation of events to establish his minority sect in the seat of power, one dictator simply replacing another. There are quite literally millions of Iranians who would like see a government which represents the Iranian heart and mind as it is, not in the image cast by a Shah or an Ayatollah, especially given recent history.
As to Europe, let us never forget Fabrizio Quattrocchi, who was kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in 2004, yet shouted defiantly on camera “This is how an Italian dies!” Such is hardly the act of a man void of ideals or courage.
When terrorist bastards blew up buses and trains in London, the result only hardened resolve and diligence, bringing support even from countries like China. It can therefore hardly be said that terrorism is dissolving alliances and commitment to international security. It’s especially worth noting that the main reaction by British Muslims was to denounce terrorism and offer to help catch the men who did it. Ferguson would do well to observe that many more Muslims are appalled and revolted by the tactics of terrorists, than ever would applaud such actions.
When Jihadist terrorists murdered hundreds of children held hostage in a school at Beslan, the response was not submission or a massive repression. Even though the Russian occupation of Chechnya is controversial, the Russian response to this atrocity was measured and restrained in context. This demonstrates a level of strategy and resolve beyond Ferguson’s understanding.
These points and others demonstrate the reason why the Coalition remains a viable alliance, despite the misleading publicity given to the few who have cut and run. In plain fact, Europe has not lost its ideals and nerve, and the Jihadists have not gained influence and support to anything like the degree Ferguson pretends. Whether by accident or connivance, Ferguson ignores the overwhelming majority of Middle East people and nations to pretend ascendancy for a militant few. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the region invalidates all assumptions and calculations drawn upon it.
Ferguson casts Iran’s sociopathic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in the role of an Islamic Hitler, and I admit the caricature is appealing to the emotion. Ferguson properly observes the incendiary quality of Ahmadinejad’s claim that the Holocaust was a “myth”. It is correct to voice concern when a national leader describes a neighboring sovereign country as a “disgraceful blot”, to be wiped “off the map”. Yet Ferguson fails to observe the basic question of capability, and of reaction to such an attempt. Ahmadinejad speaks in much the same way as Castro did, and Castro could never make good on his threats. Ferguson seems to just want to inflate the madman's credibility. Ferguson here follows with a series of statements which are dubious or even outright false in their claims. Said Ferguson, about the possibility of removing the Iranian reactor through air strikes;
“The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981.”
This presumes that the United States would wish to use Israel as a proxy, and also that Israel would be inclined to take on such a role. There is no evidence to support either contention.
“Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006.”
Many conservative commentators, including myself, have better imagination and comprehension of the region than that. Ferguson presumes that force would be the most effective response, but in actual fact there is much reason to doubt that opinion. Not only has Iran prepared for an anticipated attack, but also there are strategic choke points which would damage the Iranian programs effectively, without providing an incident that Iran could effectively use as propaganda against the United States. These options include economic sanctions, blockade, and subversive actions against Iran, such as contaminating the uranium stocks used by Iran. Further, the development of nuclear weapons, as Iran doubtless intends to build, depend on a number of crucial requirements, which the U.S. is well-positioned to deny. While such actions are more complex and difficult than simply dropping bombs where we think the plants and materials are kept, in the long run thy could well yield better results. Consider how the average American considered 3 Mile Island, which was never anything but a civilian power plant, and imagine the Iranian response to an accident at a plant designed to make nuclear weapons, which themselves could not be used in anything but a war likely to kill millions of Iranians. Ferguson, like Ahmadinejahd, has not thought this matter through to any great degree.
“The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.”
Ferguson is quite wrong on both counts. It needs saying, yet again, that the inspectors did find weapons in Iraq, though not in the numbers anticipated, but more to the point, they discovered that the WMD programs were still a high priority to Saddam Hussein, and if the invasion had not happened, the development of strategic weapons would indeed have begun again and very quickly. The consensus of those who have seen the evidence is that the invasion was indeed justified and necessary. As to the insurgency, the fact that the men committing the majority of violence are foreign to Iraq disproves the “insurgency” claim. And the fact that the terrorists in Iraq have been more and more turning their guns on Iraqi Army and police instead of U.S. troops since the last two elections in Iraq, demonstrates that this “insurgency” is in fact nothing more than a foreign-supported attempt to prevent genuine self-rule by Iraq; and the results of the past two elections, both with greater-than-predicted levels of participation, shows that Iraq is well on the road to taking care of itself. The U.S. still needs to assist in Iraq, but Ferguson is either lying or has made a colossal blunder in overlooking the general success of the American mission in Iraq.
“As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking.” Ferguson demonstrates that he has no operation knowledge of groups like the SAS or people like the American Director of National Intelligence.
“The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.”
Ferguson demonstrates a complete lack of perception regarding American post-9/11 diplomacy. Rice does not make that mistake. The Bush State Doctrine, as many well know, is not one to allow a threat to grow beyond redress.
Ferguson proceeds down his imaginative fallacy: “The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.”
Failing to understand the U.S. military, Ferguson presumes a nuclear event would be allowed to proceed. Failing to understand the Iraqi identity in the aftermath of free elections, Ferguson assumes that Iraqis would act in the image of a nation almost completely unlike themselves. Failing to perceive the new identity of women and youth in the Middle East, in places like Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, Ferguson fails to understand the present actions behind the scenes in the Middle East, and the importance of true Sovereignty and Self-Determination to the Arab states, Ferguson presumes that the majority would act in imitation of the worst among them. And failing to understand the Chinese Grand Strategy in Southwest Asia, Ferguson does not understand why Beijing will work to rein in Iran, albeit quietly, rather than encourage Jihadist movements which would threaten their own frontiers in short order.
Niall Ferguson does do one service to the matter – he demonstrates how so many people, understanding only one perspective and proceeding from a series of rash assumptions, can oppose the very actions which remove the dangers they fear, and will ridicule the people whose words and plans are better suited to the moment and its challenge. That is, we can be very glad that God has provided us with the likes of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to address such a crisis, instead of the likes of Niall Ferguson. It is a small matter then, that years from now when the events in Iran are seen in retrospect, academics like Ferguson will forget their dire predictions and claim there was never a threat at all, or else that we were providentially spared from the approaching disaster, rather than crediting the plans and foresight of the men and women who faced the crisis. Bloggers like myself will be there to set the record straight, and the people will decide.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
PFL Divisional Playoffs
[--]
American Conference
Teddy Roosevelt (17-0) 24, Monroe (14-4) 12
Reagan (17-0) 26, Washington (16-2) 6
National Conference
George W. Bush (17-0) 26, Jefferson (14-4) 9
Eisenhower (16-1) 24, Franklin Roosevelt (15-3) 9
Conference Championships
Reagan at Teddy Roosevelt
Eisenhower at George W. Bush
American Conference
Teddy Roosevelt (17-0) 24, Monroe (14-4) 12
Reagan (17-0) 26, Washington (16-2) 6
National Conference
George W. Bush (17-0) 26, Jefferson (14-4) 9
Eisenhower (16-1) 24, Franklin Roosevelt (15-3) 9
Conference Championships
Reagan at Teddy Roosevelt
Eisenhower at George W. Bush
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Television and Self-Delusion
[duh]
This past week has been interesting as an observation in Maturity. The confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito have actually gone better than many on the Right expected, in large part due to the Democrats’ inability to perceive when they have crossed the line, to such a degree that even Katie Couric chided Senator Bombast for his conduct. A rather plain, professorial man has become perceived as the unfair target of a political witchhunt. And so his stock rises even among thsoe who would prefer to see him fail. But we already know that Democrats, in the main, have simply abandoned responsible priorities and civil debate. This week, while welcome, was predictable.
So too the trends in Mainstream television. I don’t just mean the “News”, which on the major broadcast networks means running the copy through the Boston and Los Angeles affiliates to make sure it has that left-wing sheen to placate thescreaming lunatics sophisticated minions of journalism, but the prime time fare. During this week, I noted the leading shows, established and new, and found them strangely familiar in their method:
Cold Case - Unsolved murders are unraveled by a single white female, who heads up the Cold Case team. In true PC fashion, even her boss defers to her judgment and opinion. The victims are usually women and minorities, and the villains generally male and white.
Close to Home - Brave single white female leads search for truth, prosecuting crimes perpetrated against women and minorities by males and whites. This week’s episode featured a white family carrying out a race war one murder at a time; the black victims were always helpless, and there were several scenes where the families of the victims nodded their obligatory thanks for the courageous white woman stepping to save them from the other white people.
CSI - Team of pathologists solves what is beyond trained investigators from the police department. The forensics team is diverse in race, gender, class and culture, but homogenous in political sentiment. The villain is often the richest white person in the plot.
Injustice - Hailed by ABC as “groundbreaking”, this series features a brave white defense lawyer, who convicts the entire Criminal Justice system on the assumption of massive misjudgments by police, courts, attorneys and juries. The brave white man steps in to help minorities who apparently are not able to find justice without a brave white liberal to help them. Apparently the “groundbreaking” part comes from a white liberal male helping the minority people out, instead of a white liberal female.
The idea is well-established in more than a dozen primetime dramas, and yet it would offend any reasonable person, the notion that minorities need the help of liberals to find justice, to say nothing of a minority person holding authority under their own merit and effort. And yet, that is exactly how the Democrats present their candidates; mostly men, a few strong women, but always white in the nationally prominent positions, and always left-of-center. OK, so these days it’s hardly shocking that Democrats look for left-of-center, but it’s fascinating to notice just how much the Democrats seem to think that Hollywood’s version of things ought to be, is just how the DNC spends its support. Comparing the Republican record, especially in recent years, to the Democrats’ record, is amusing and quite telling. President George W. Bush has appointed more minorities to significant posts than any Democrat has even suggested. And look at the judicial appointments; no modern Democrat has even nominated a Black, Hispanic, or Asian to the Supreme Court, ever. A glance at the short list for Bush’s next appointment shows some faces and names that would be hilarious to see the race-conscious Liberals attack; they will of course, just as they did with Clarence Thomas, but the hypocrisy will be harder than ever for them to hide.
This past week has been interesting as an observation in Maturity. The confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito have actually gone better than many on the Right expected, in large part due to the Democrats’ inability to perceive when they have crossed the line, to such a degree that even Katie Couric chided Senator Bombast for his conduct. A rather plain, professorial man has become perceived as the unfair target of a political witchhunt. And so his stock rises even among thsoe who would prefer to see him fail. But we already know that Democrats, in the main, have simply abandoned responsible priorities and civil debate. This week, while welcome, was predictable.
So too the trends in Mainstream television. I don’t just mean the “News”, which on the major broadcast networks means running the copy through the Boston and Los Angeles affiliates to make sure it has that left-wing sheen to placate the
Cold Case - Unsolved murders are unraveled by a single white female, who heads up the Cold Case team. In true PC fashion, even her boss defers to her judgment and opinion. The victims are usually women and minorities, and the villains generally male and white.
Close to Home - Brave single white female leads search for truth, prosecuting crimes perpetrated against women and minorities by males and whites. This week’s episode featured a white family carrying out a race war one murder at a time; the black victims were always helpless, and there were several scenes where the families of the victims nodded their obligatory thanks for the courageous white woman stepping to save them from the other white people.
CSI - Team of pathologists solves what is beyond trained investigators from the police department. The forensics team is diverse in race, gender, class and culture, but homogenous in political sentiment. The villain is often the richest white person in the plot.
Injustice - Hailed by ABC as “groundbreaking”, this series features a brave white defense lawyer, who convicts the entire Criminal Justice system on the assumption of massive misjudgments by police, courts, attorneys and juries. The brave white man steps in to help minorities who apparently are not able to find justice without a brave white liberal to help them. Apparently the “groundbreaking” part comes from a white liberal male helping the minority people out, instead of a white liberal female.
The idea is well-established in more than a dozen primetime dramas, and yet it would offend any reasonable person, the notion that minorities need the help of liberals to find justice, to say nothing of a minority person holding authority under their own merit and effort. And yet, that is exactly how the Democrats present their candidates; mostly men, a few strong women, but always white in the nationally prominent positions, and always left-of-center. OK, so these days it’s hardly shocking that Democrats look for left-of-center, but it’s fascinating to notice just how much the Democrats seem to think that Hollywood’s version of things ought to be, is just how the DNC spends its support. Comparing the Republican record, especially in recent years, to the Democrats’ record, is amusing and quite telling. President George W. Bush has appointed more minorities to significant posts than any Democrat has even suggested. And look at the judicial appointments; no modern Democrat has even nominated a Black, Hispanic, or Asian to the Supreme Court, ever. A glance at the short list for Bush’s next appointment shows some faces and names that would be hilarious to see the race-conscious Liberals attack; they will of course, just as they did with Clarence Thomas, but the hypocrisy will be harder than ever for them to hide.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Facing Down Malice And Morons
{<>}
Readers may be aware that I am preparing, late in life, to pursue my Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree. Because of my work and family responsibilities, I am not in a position to move to another part of the country and spend full-time studies at a prestigious university, nor does my resume suggest that such a commitment would be significantly effective in improving my career. Like many Americans, my career needs documentation to advance, but my position does not afford the luxury of full-time study. As a result, I began to research part-time study and Distance Learning. A large number of schools offer graduate degrees with evening and/or weekend classes, and of course the Distance Learning courses were designed with working people in mind. But in addition to the need to measure the reputation of each school and program, the working student must also consider the stupidity, prejudice, and hidebound fear of progress present in many places, especially as ‘brick-and-mortar’ schools find themselves ill-equipped to address 21st-Century realities.
As a case in point, there is a blogger by the nomme de plume of “Dead Man Blogging” (his real name appears to be Dean Domenico, first name unknown, college unstated, credentials nonexistent judging from this little piece of work), which seems an awfully petty inference to such a serious issue, especially given that this fellow has not posted even one article on the Death Penalty, but I digress.
This fellow claims to be a Department Chairman at “a New England College’s Business School”. Certainly he has the arrogance to match the claim, as he tears into Distance Learning with absolutely nothing beyond his prejudice and fear of new technology to support his insults. Even so, his claims are worth examining, as they demonstrate not only the false assumptions of the Brickhead set, but also their emotional refusal to examine the matter in detail, which practice is often fatal in the business world. That is, when an executive makes important decisions on assumptions and prejudice, he is often going to discover his error in the General Ledger. For a department head of a college to make such a mistake in dismissing the value and credibility of alternative degree programs, is no less stupid than Ken Lay’s repeated imitation of Sergeant Schulz about what was going on at Enron.
“Dead Man”, as he wishes to be called, makes a series of blunders in his assertions, which should be considered in the light of reason, to which I humbly submit my efforts:
Dead Man: “Distance learning, where students essentially attend college online, seems to be a win-win for all concerned. Students get college credit from the comfort of their own home, and colleges have a high profit, high growth potential alternative revenue stream. Even make-believe colleges, like the University of Phoenix, can get in on the action in tapping into the large number of people looking for an easy degree and willing to buy the credential.”
So, beyond the obvious hatred for Distance Learning, what errors does Dead Man make here? First off, he implies that Online students are lazy and Online schools are greedy. The best refutation to that comes from the fact that the University of Phoenix is accredited, meaning that its practices and curriculum have been reviewed and approved by an authorized body of professionals. In UoP’s case, that would be the Higher Learning Commission, founded in 1895 and responsible for accrediting higher-learning schools in nineteen states. The HLC is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Phoenix is also a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of eleven major regional accrediting agencies in the United States. The United States has no national accrediting body, but does recognize several national associations in specialized degrees.
As a result, not only is the University of Phoenix recognized at regional and national levels as a fully-accredited school of higher learning, it is entirely possible that UoP has better accreditation than the college where “Dead Man” runs a department. I think it is patently obvious at this point, that referring to an accredited university with clear and strict degree requirements and course curricula as “make-believe” is not merely a baseless insult to the professors and students at the University of Phoenix, but demonstrates the low intellectual effort made by Dead Man to determine the school’s qualities. Claiming that Distance Learning is an “easy” degree or that students are trying to “buy the credential”, appears to my mind to be so false and prejudiced as to tread on an actionable offense.
Dead Man has therefore established an intellectual laziness on his part, with more than a whiff of dishonesty and malice. One difference, after all, between the in-school and online studies, is that the student attending school can sometimes hide in the back, “attending” the class but not participating if he is not prepared, while the online student is required to participate and contribute – the system records his comments and questions, so there is actually a higher standard of participation required for the online student. Dead Man is oblivious to this rather plain fact.
Next, we read this from Dead Man : “I see a lot of students, especially those returning after some time in the work force, that are just looking to get their ticket punched and seeking the easiest path to the sheepskin.”
Now see, only someone so immersed in Academia and its Elitism for Elitism’s Sake mantra, could possibly address professionals seeking an advanced degree with such obvious contempt. It seems that we working folks are somehow sullying the halls of his Ivory Tower to seek a degree which we can actually use, or to presume that years of professional work can add practical value to classroom discussion would somehow diminish the wisdom of such sages as “Dead Man”. I rather suspect that Dead Man fears that theories which are touted in the classroom would have reason to fear close examination by people experienced in the real world, and so he would prefer to keep out those who might prove him wrong, unaware that his own arguments demonstrate his error.
Dead Man did make one salient comment in his article: “The two important issues are whether the distance learning experience delivers a valuable education, and whether a distance learning degree delivers a valued credential.”
Unfortunately, this “Department Chairman” completely fails to answer the first question honestly, and so fails on accuracy as well. His article places the value on what Dead Man calls “traditional college educators” and “sophisticated employers”, never observing the false premise contained in those groups. First, a reasonable querant looks for objective responses to significant questions, not consensus among partisans. Dead Man apparently asked some people with backgrounds and environments similar to his own, and wonder of wonders, discovered that they share his prejudice. Dead Man reinforces this blunder by claiming, again on no evidence whatsoever, that Distance Learning means “low-level entrance requirements (which are essentially a pen and checkbook)” [the man simply cannot be bothered to go dig up the facts on this point], and “the lack of a classroom experience replete with interactions with instructors and other students”. This second statement is even more outrageous, when one considers real-world examples. I have already outlined the accreditation of Phoenix, but Dead Man also blows the point by failing to observe that a number of very fine traditional universities also offer Distance Learning graduate programs, including Arizona State University, Boston University, Colorado State University, Drexel University, Gonzaga University, the University of Iowa, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine University, Purdue University, Quinnipiac University, Syracuse University, Temple University, Tulane University, Villanova University, Wake Forest University, and the University of Washington. Dead Man manages to falsely insult over a hundred universities offering online degree, including many with AACSB accreditation – the highest tier of accrediting associations for business schools. Dead Man once again proves himself to be either exceptionally dense, or exceptionally malicious in addition to being recklessly stupid.
Dead man dismisses the online discussions as “canned”, which I find distinctly hypocritical and pretentious. I recall my undergraduate days at Baylor, in classes which sometimes exceeded a hundred students, so that asking the professor a question during class was simply impossible, and many professors were notorious for not being at their offices during posted hours. The online experience, on the other hand, is specifically engineered to create conversation including all students, where every student has access to the professor and classmates, and where questions and observations are not limited to a set schedule, but are posted and answered both in real time and as different individuals see the posting. This provides not only for more response, but better information and a deeper understanding of the material discussed. Once again, Dead Man’s prejudices blind him to perceiving the true state of things.
Dead Man sniffs at the very notion of Distance Learning, saying “This is not a defensive posture germinating from a desire to preserve our jobs and the status quo; quite the contrary, distance learning (and for some, even web-ct, i.e., distance learning lite), would make our jobs immensely easier. We are philosophically against it, and see it as a matter of ethics and efficacy.”
Having cited evidence that shows Dead Man is not only unaware of the educational advantages of the online classroom, clearly biased against fullly-employed students pursuing advanced degrees, and totally out of touch with not only the failings of old-style classrooms, but also the teaching gains to be had by using new technology, this statement is worse than self-serving – it is no better than denial, and once again falsely implies a lower standard to Distance Learning. Further, the exponential growth of Distance Learning degrees from schools ranked as among the very best for business degrees by such publications as Business Week and U.S. News and World Report, demonstrates a rank hypocrisy by Dead Man and his like-minded cronies. No, he and his ilk demean Distance Learning, even as some of the very best schools in the country pursue such options and excel in their results. Dead Man says “When we get applications from those with distance learning degrees, for instance, they are immediately discarded. Many of the employers we talk to have the same perspective, and in fact a distance learning degree is sometimes viewed as worse than having no degree at all.”
That is simply the hate speech of a delusional bigot, and at this point only reinforces the sad stupidity of this claimant. Dead Man demands that students “work in the right way and get the job done. A distance degree signals sloth with the faint scent of artifice, a desire to take the easy way out.”
I dare say sir, that a graduate from a school like Syracuse or Drexel with an online MBA is far more competent in his field than you can pretend, especially as your inability to support your claims with evidence, or even notice the explosion of quality programs, so coldly displays a refusal to do your homework or consider evidence from the real world. And speaking from my writing perspective, Dead Man is also a distinctly poor blogger.
My point in this denunciation of such recalcitrant hypocrisy, is not only to take apart this slander against a sector of the student population, whose work is equally as good as the old-style schools could claim, but to point out that a key responsibility for the modern commentator includes challenging the prejudices and old-world bias that still stain progress and injure honest people. Whether correcting the bias of Mainstream News or the malice in Hidebound Academia, we must pursue open discussion, correction, and redirection towards Reality, away from the assumptions and hypocrisy of the past.
Readers may be aware that I am preparing, late in life, to pursue my Masters in Business Administration (MBA) degree. Because of my work and family responsibilities, I am not in a position to move to another part of the country and spend full-time studies at a prestigious university, nor does my resume suggest that such a commitment would be significantly effective in improving my career. Like many Americans, my career needs documentation to advance, but my position does not afford the luxury of full-time study. As a result, I began to research part-time study and Distance Learning. A large number of schools offer graduate degrees with evening and/or weekend classes, and of course the Distance Learning courses were designed with working people in mind. But in addition to the need to measure the reputation of each school and program, the working student must also consider the stupidity, prejudice, and hidebound fear of progress present in many places, especially as ‘brick-and-mortar’ schools find themselves ill-equipped to address 21st-Century realities.
As a case in point, there is a blogger by the nomme de plume of “Dead Man Blogging” (his real name appears to be Dean Domenico, first name unknown, college unstated, credentials nonexistent judging from this little piece of work), which seems an awfully petty inference to such a serious issue, especially given that this fellow has not posted even one article on the Death Penalty, but I digress.
This fellow claims to be a Department Chairman at “a New England College’s Business School”. Certainly he has the arrogance to match the claim, as he tears into Distance Learning with absolutely nothing beyond his prejudice and fear of new technology to support his insults. Even so, his claims are worth examining, as they demonstrate not only the false assumptions of the Brickhead set, but also their emotional refusal to examine the matter in detail, which practice is often fatal in the business world. That is, when an executive makes important decisions on assumptions and prejudice, he is often going to discover his error in the General Ledger. For a department head of a college to make such a mistake in dismissing the value and credibility of alternative degree programs, is no less stupid than Ken Lay’s repeated imitation of Sergeant Schulz about what was going on at Enron.
“Dead Man”, as he wishes to be called, makes a series of blunders in his assertions, which should be considered in the light of reason, to which I humbly submit my efforts:
Dead Man: “Distance learning, where students essentially attend college online, seems to be a win-win for all concerned. Students get college credit from the comfort of their own home, and colleges have a high profit, high growth potential alternative revenue stream. Even make-believe colleges, like the University of Phoenix, can get in on the action in tapping into the large number of people looking for an easy degree and willing to buy the credential.”
So, beyond the obvious hatred for Distance Learning, what errors does Dead Man make here? First off, he implies that Online students are lazy and Online schools are greedy. The best refutation to that comes from the fact that the University of Phoenix is accredited, meaning that its practices and curriculum have been reviewed and approved by an authorized body of professionals. In UoP’s case, that would be the Higher Learning Commission, founded in 1895 and responsible for accrediting higher-learning schools in nineteen states. The HLC is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Phoenix is also a member of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of eleven major regional accrediting agencies in the United States. The United States has no national accrediting body, but does recognize several national associations in specialized degrees.
As a result, not only is the University of Phoenix recognized at regional and national levels as a fully-accredited school of higher learning, it is entirely possible that UoP has better accreditation than the college where “Dead Man” runs a department. I think it is patently obvious at this point, that referring to an accredited university with clear and strict degree requirements and course curricula as “make-believe” is not merely a baseless insult to the professors and students at the University of Phoenix, but demonstrates the low intellectual effort made by Dead Man to determine the school’s qualities. Claiming that Distance Learning is an “easy” degree or that students are trying to “buy the credential”, appears to my mind to be so false and prejudiced as to tread on an actionable offense.
Dead Man has therefore established an intellectual laziness on his part, with more than a whiff of dishonesty and malice. One difference, after all, between the in-school and online studies, is that the student attending school can sometimes hide in the back, “attending” the class but not participating if he is not prepared, while the online student is required to participate and contribute – the system records his comments and questions, so there is actually a higher standard of participation required for the online student. Dead Man is oblivious to this rather plain fact.
Next, we read this from Dead Man : “I see a lot of students, especially those returning after some time in the work force, that are just looking to get their ticket punched and seeking the easiest path to the sheepskin.”
Now see, only someone so immersed in Academia and its Elitism for Elitism’s Sake mantra, could possibly address professionals seeking an advanced degree with such obvious contempt. It seems that we working folks are somehow sullying the halls of his Ivory Tower to seek a degree which we can actually use, or to presume that years of professional work can add practical value to classroom discussion would somehow diminish the wisdom of such sages as “Dead Man”. I rather suspect that Dead Man fears that theories which are touted in the classroom would have reason to fear close examination by people experienced in the real world, and so he would prefer to keep out those who might prove him wrong, unaware that his own arguments demonstrate his error.
Dead Man did make one salient comment in his article: “The two important issues are whether the distance learning experience delivers a valuable education, and whether a distance learning degree delivers a valued credential.”
Unfortunately, this “Department Chairman” completely fails to answer the first question honestly, and so fails on accuracy as well. His article places the value on what Dead Man calls “traditional college educators” and “sophisticated employers”, never observing the false premise contained in those groups. First, a reasonable querant looks for objective responses to significant questions, not consensus among partisans. Dead Man apparently asked some people with backgrounds and environments similar to his own, and wonder of wonders, discovered that they share his prejudice. Dead Man reinforces this blunder by claiming, again on no evidence whatsoever, that Distance Learning means “low-level entrance requirements (which are essentially a pen and checkbook)” [the man simply cannot be bothered to go dig up the facts on this point], and “the lack of a classroom experience replete with interactions with instructors and other students”. This second statement is even more outrageous, when one considers real-world examples. I have already outlined the accreditation of Phoenix, but Dead Man also blows the point by failing to observe that a number of very fine traditional universities also offer Distance Learning graduate programs, including Arizona State University, Boston University, Colorado State University, Drexel University, Gonzaga University, the University of Iowa, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine University, Purdue University, Quinnipiac University, Syracuse University, Temple University, Tulane University, Villanova University, Wake Forest University, and the University of Washington. Dead Man manages to falsely insult over a hundred universities offering online degree, including many with AACSB accreditation – the highest tier of accrediting associations for business schools. Dead Man once again proves himself to be either exceptionally dense, or exceptionally malicious in addition to being recklessly stupid.
Dead man dismisses the online discussions as “canned”, which I find distinctly hypocritical and pretentious. I recall my undergraduate days at Baylor, in classes which sometimes exceeded a hundred students, so that asking the professor a question during class was simply impossible, and many professors were notorious for not being at their offices during posted hours. The online experience, on the other hand, is specifically engineered to create conversation including all students, where every student has access to the professor and classmates, and where questions and observations are not limited to a set schedule, but are posted and answered both in real time and as different individuals see the posting. This provides not only for more response, but better information and a deeper understanding of the material discussed. Once again, Dead Man’s prejudices blind him to perceiving the true state of things.
Dead Man sniffs at the very notion of Distance Learning, saying “This is not a defensive posture germinating from a desire to preserve our jobs and the status quo; quite the contrary, distance learning (and for some, even web-ct, i.e., distance learning lite), would make our jobs immensely easier. We are philosophically against it, and see it as a matter of ethics and efficacy.”
Having cited evidence that shows Dead Man is not only unaware of the educational advantages of the online classroom, clearly biased against fullly-employed students pursuing advanced degrees, and totally out of touch with not only the failings of old-style classrooms, but also the teaching gains to be had by using new technology, this statement is worse than self-serving – it is no better than denial, and once again falsely implies a lower standard to Distance Learning. Further, the exponential growth of Distance Learning degrees from schools ranked as among the very best for business degrees by such publications as Business Week and U.S. News and World Report, demonstrates a rank hypocrisy by Dead Man and his like-minded cronies. No, he and his ilk demean Distance Learning, even as some of the very best schools in the country pursue such options and excel in their results. Dead Man says “When we get applications from those with distance learning degrees, for instance, they are immediately discarded. Many of the employers we talk to have the same perspective, and in fact a distance learning degree is sometimes viewed as worse than having no degree at all.”
That is simply the hate speech of a delusional bigot, and at this point only reinforces the sad stupidity of this claimant. Dead Man demands that students “work in the right way and get the job done. A distance degree signals sloth with the faint scent of artifice, a desire to take the easy way out.”
I dare say sir, that a graduate from a school like Syracuse or Drexel with an online MBA is far more competent in his field than you can pretend, especially as your inability to support your claims with evidence, or even notice the explosion of quality programs, so coldly displays a refusal to do your homework or consider evidence from the real world. And speaking from my writing perspective, Dead Man is also a distinctly poor blogger.
My point in this denunciation of such recalcitrant hypocrisy, is not only to take apart this slander against a sector of the student population, whose work is equally as good as the old-style schools could claim, but to point out that a key responsibility for the modern commentator includes challenging the prejudices and old-world bias that still stain progress and injure honest people. Whether correcting the bias of Mainstream News or the malice in Hidebound Academia, we must pursue open discussion, correction, and redirection towards Reality, away from the assumptions and hypocrisy of the past.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Where’s Waldo? I Could Tell You, But Then I Would Have To Kill You
.* * * .
Yes, it’s me again, “shilling” for the Intelligence Community, or more accurately explaining some of the roles of and distinctions between the different agencies and offices in the Intelligence Community (IC). The Aluminati will claim it’s all conspiracy of course, but the actual separation of duties and roles for each agency is important to seeing the mosaic which is U.S. National Security. I have already discussed the CIA, NSA, and FBI, although barely touching the surface of each. Today, I examine one of the more obscure agencies, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
From its name, one would suspect that the DIA performs a military version of the functions done by the CIA, but that is not exactly correct. The DIA is a manager of information for the military, but where the CIA uses its agents to collect information and analyzes that for decisions by the Executive Branch, the DIA receives military intelligence and disseminates it to the men in the field.
The DIA was created in 1961, and enjoys the distinction of being the first agency to conclusively determine the existence of Soviet missile launch pads on the island of Cuba in 1962.
This parsing of information may seem small matters to people obsessed with our collection efforts, but analysis is the key to making use of any information. As important as it is to gain the clues to what our enemies intend, we must have capable analysts who can not only determine the likely intentions of our foes, but offer useful information to the men who must prevent those intentions.
Yes, it’s me again, “shilling” for the Intelligence Community, or more accurately explaining some of the roles of and distinctions between the different agencies and offices in the Intelligence Community (IC). The Aluminati will claim it’s all conspiracy of course, but the actual separation of duties and roles for each agency is important to seeing the mosaic which is U.S. National Security. I have already discussed the CIA, NSA, and FBI, although barely touching the surface of each. Today, I examine one of the more obscure agencies, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).
From its name, one would suspect that the DIA performs a military version of the functions done by the CIA, but that is not exactly correct. The DIA is a manager of information for the military, but where the CIA uses its agents to collect information and analyzes that for decisions by the Executive Branch, the DIA receives military intelligence and disseminates it to the men in the field.
The DIA was created in 1961, and enjoys the distinction of being the first agency to conclusively determine the existence of Soviet missile launch pads on the island of Cuba in 1962.
This parsing of information may seem small matters to people obsessed with our collection efforts, but analysis is the key to making use of any information. As important as it is to gain the clues to what our enemies intend, we must have capable analysts who can not only determine the likely intentions of our foes, but offer useful information to the men who must prevent those intentions.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Malcolm In The Middle, SCOTUS Style
{+++}
As the Senate Judiciary Committee bumbles through predictable questions, predictable statements, and heads towards what certainly appears to be the predictable confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, there seems to be little attention paid yet to the man whose stock rises the most in this new balance of influence; Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It looks pretty likely that Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the high court, and it’s pretty clear that Alito will be, as much as we can be sure, more to the liking of Conservatives than Liberals. He will join the likes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and of course Chief Justice Roberts as champions of that paradigm.
On the other side, of course, are the existing voices which have sung a chorus more to the Liberal tune: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. That matches up four from the Right, against four from the Left. The tipping point on controversial issues, then, will be Justice Kennedy.
In theory, Kennedy is a little bit more to the Right than to the Left. But there is reason for concern in his opinions. As an example, regarding the rights and authority of the President under Article II of the Constitution, which bears directly on the present conflict, we may find reason for concern from Kennedy’s comments in CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004), where Kennedy wrote the opinion, saying “Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances”, meaning that the Court may claim the right to review Presidential authority. In the case before the court, Kennedy and the majority reasoned that the “Court’s analysis of whether mandamus relief is appropriate should itself be constrained by principles similar to those we have outlined, supra, at 9—11, that limit the Court of Appeals’ use of the remedy. The panel majority, however, failed to ask this question. Instead, it labored under the mistaken assumption that the assertion of executive privilege is a necessary precondition to the Government’s separation-of-powers objections.” A mixed bag, confirming the President’s authority, while claiming the right to review that authority.
Also of interest would be Kennedy’s concurrence in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (00-1293) 535 U.S. 564 (2002), where Kennedy sided with arguments defeating the Child Online Protection Act, placing the freedoms of pornographers ahead of the safety of children. Kennedy made the same decision again in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (03-218) 542 U.S. 656 (2004), even to the point of arguing that because foreign pornography could still be seen with the COPA filters in place, that this constituted unfair treatment of American pornographers, since it suppressed their expression but not foreign expression.
Another indicator of the mind Of Kennedy would be the Kelo decision. In Kennedy’s concurrence of the near abolition of private property rights, Kennedy changed the meaning of the law to put all the weight on proving malice on the part of the homeowner, creating a government "right" to seize private property unless malice was proven. Kennedy sniffed “while there may be categories of cases in which the transfers are so suspicious, or the procedures employed so prone to abuse, or the purported benefits are so trivial or implausible, that courts should presume an impermissible private purpose, no such circumstances are present in this case.” One wonders if Kennedy has ever seen things from the eye of the common man.
So, while the coming confirmation of Alito is a good sign, we still need to gain a sound mind to put the Court right. I worry that the celebrity of being courted by both sides will give Kennedy an arrogance worthy of his surname.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee bumbles through predictable questions, predictable statements, and heads towards what certainly appears to be the predictable confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, there seems to be little attention paid yet to the man whose stock rises the most in this new balance of influence; Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It looks pretty likely that Samuel Alito will be confirmed to the high court, and it’s pretty clear that Alito will be, as much as we can be sure, more to the liking of Conservatives than Liberals. He will join the likes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and of course Chief Justice Roberts as champions of that paradigm.
On the other side, of course, are the existing voices which have sung a chorus more to the Liberal tune: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and John Paul Stevens. That matches up four from the Right, against four from the Left. The tipping point on controversial issues, then, will be Justice Kennedy.
In theory, Kennedy is a little bit more to the Right than to the Left. But there is reason for concern in his opinions. As an example, regarding the rights and authority of the President under Article II of the Constitution, which bears directly on the present conflict, we may find reason for concern from Kennedy’s comments in CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004), where Kennedy wrote the opinion, saying “Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances”, meaning that the Court may claim the right to review Presidential authority. In the case before the court, Kennedy and the majority reasoned that the “Court’s analysis of whether mandamus relief is appropriate should itself be constrained by principles similar to those we have outlined, supra, at 9—11, that limit the Court of Appeals’ use of the remedy. The panel majority, however, failed to ask this question. Instead, it labored under the mistaken assumption that the assertion of executive privilege is a necessary precondition to the Government’s separation-of-powers objections.” A mixed bag, confirming the President’s authority, while claiming the right to review that authority.
Also of interest would be Kennedy’s concurrence in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (00-1293) 535 U.S. 564 (2002), where Kennedy sided with arguments defeating the Child Online Protection Act, placing the freedoms of pornographers ahead of the safety of children. Kennedy made the same decision again in ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (03-218) 542 U.S. 656 (2004), even to the point of arguing that because foreign pornography could still be seen with the COPA filters in place, that this constituted unfair treatment of American pornographers, since it suppressed their expression but not foreign expression.
Another indicator of the mind Of Kennedy would be the Kelo decision. In Kennedy’s concurrence of the near abolition of private property rights, Kennedy changed the meaning of the law to put all the weight on proving malice on the part of the homeowner, creating a government "right" to seize private property unless malice was proven. Kennedy sniffed “while there may be categories of cases in which the transfers are so suspicious, or the procedures employed so prone to abuse, or the purported benefits are so trivial or implausible, that courts should presume an impermissible private purpose, no such circumstances are present in this case.” One wonders if Kennedy has ever seen things from the eye of the common man.
So, while the coming confirmation of Alito is a good sign, we still need to gain a sound mind to put the Court right. I worry that the celebrity of being courted by both sides will give Kennedy an arrogance worthy of his surname.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Hokey Pokey
...
My books from Ebay finally arrived. What’s interesting is, the tracking number at USPS.com still shows them in Dallas. The lack of detail in their tracking system is obvious; they show the initial pickup in Seattle, travel to Federal Way that same day, then nothing until January 5th, when the books were located in Dallas. And no movement in the tracking number through today, even though the books have actually been delivered. Apparently, it requires a manual notice added to the account to update the location, which not only delays the notice of movement, but creates a real potential for error. Compared to UPS, the Postal Service really is still in the Stone Age, and their recent rate hike is not likely to fix that.
I am not saying that UPS is perfect, by any means. A couple years ago, a UPS delivery ended up on my door, even though it
A - was for a house on a completely different street; and
B - was supposed to be signed for on delivery.
I looked up the right street and delivered the package myself. I wondered at the time, and wonder again now, what sort of disciplinary measures UPS uses when a delivery guy makes this kind of error. In any case, it reminds me that any company is going to have a certain amount of lost or delayed deliveries. But it also reminds me that the mindset at any given company is trained, and avoidable mistakes happen in places where the perspective is not in line with the real world. On every level, the Postal Service does its best, but cannot claim a standard of excellence. Lines are shorter at private companies, their rates go up less often, the private companies’ tracking process is more effective and accurate, and deliveries can be guaranteed to a more precise degree. The Postal Service, for example, offers guaranteed delivery within two business days, but FedEx can guarantee delivery within a twelve-hour window, in some cases within a four-hour window. That reflects not only the limitations of a massive government-style bureacracy, but also an attitude which is not primarily focused on the customer. Not to pick on the USPS, but I have observed periods where the carrier simply chose not to complete a route, where deliveries were missed for two or three days at a location, simply because the delivery person was not motivated to go to all their assigned stops. This speaks to Accountability, and to Apathy.
The reader may well wonder why I am rehashing something I brought up last week, but in this case I am thinking about how the USPS reflects the shortcomings of another large government body with a problem focusing on Accountability or personal responsibility - the U.S. Senate. As you read this article, somewhere in a committee room a Senator is either asking a question for no purpose beyond grandstanding, laying a foundation for his or her political campaigns in the fall, or some Senate aide is looking past the larger evidence of Alito’s mind and character, in search of some small piece of paper which can be employed, no matter how out of context, as an attack on him or the President who nominated him. As I was driving home yesterday, I heard Hugh Hewitt discuss the Alito record with another lawyer, who mentioned the sheer hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy, for suggesting that Alito is racist because of his ruling in one case, even though there were more than a dozen major cases where Alito’s opinion was in strong favor of the minority plaintiff. I did not have a way to write down the names or cases at the time, but the point was not only clear, but also sadly familiar. We are all aware that politics takes precedence over things most of us would count greater. The United States Senate seems to consider themselves above the accountability they demand of most public servants. Indeed, I suspect most of them only think of the very word “servants” as people they employ, rather than a description of their own office and duties. More than a few Senators have made comments this winter which suggest they plan to wait out President Bush, knowing he will not run for a third term (since such limits are applied to Presidents but not Senators), and wait for a more malleable Chief Executive. Small wonder that the rumor mill is pressing the names of McCain and Clinton, members of “The Club” themselves, for the party nominations, even if the average American would be poorly served by either one as President.
My books from Ebay finally arrived. What’s interesting is, the tracking number at USPS.com still shows them in Dallas. The lack of detail in their tracking system is obvious; they show the initial pickup in Seattle, travel to Federal Way that same day, then nothing until January 5th, when the books were located in Dallas. And no movement in the tracking number through today, even though the books have actually been delivered. Apparently, it requires a manual notice added to the account to update the location, which not only delays the notice of movement, but creates a real potential for error. Compared to UPS, the Postal Service really is still in the Stone Age, and their recent rate hike is not likely to fix that.
I am not saying that UPS is perfect, by any means. A couple years ago, a UPS delivery ended up on my door, even though it
A - was for a house on a completely different street; and
B - was supposed to be signed for on delivery.
I looked up the right street and delivered the package myself. I wondered at the time, and wonder again now, what sort of disciplinary measures UPS uses when a delivery guy makes this kind of error. In any case, it reminds me that any company is going to have a certain amount of lost or delayed deliveries. But it also reminds me that the mindset at any given company is trained, and avoidable mistakes happen in places where the perspective is not in line with the real world. On every level, the Postal Service does its best, but cannot claim a standard of excellence. Lines are shorter at private companies, their rates go up less often, the private companies’ tracking process is more effective and accurate, and deliveries can be guaranteed to a more precise degree. The Postal Service, for example, offers guaranteed delivery within two business days, but FedEx can guarantee delivery within a twelve-hour window, in some cases within a four-hour window. That reflects not only the limitations of a massive government-style bureacracy, but also an attitude which is not primarily focused on the customer. Not to pick on the USPS, but I have observed periods where the carrier simply chose not to complete a route, where deliveries were missed for two or three days at a location, simply because the delivery person was not motivated to go to all their assigned stops. This speaks to Accountability, and to Apathy.
The reader may well wonder why I am rehashing something I brought up last week, but in this case I am thinking about how the USPS reflects the shortcomings of another large government body with a problem focusing on Accountability or personal responsibility - the U.S. Senate. As you read this article, somewhere in a committee room a Senator is either asking a question for no purpose beyond grandstanding, laying a foundation for his or her political campaigns in the fall, or some Senate aide is looking past the larger evidence of Alito’s mind and character, in search of some small piece of paper which can be employed, no matter how out of context, as an attack on him or the President who nominated him. As I was driving home yesterday, I heard Hugh Hewitt discuss the Alito record with another lawyer, who mentioned the sheer hypocrisy of Ted Kennedy, for suggesting that Alito is racist because of his ruling in one case, even though there were more than a dozen major cases where Alito’s opinion was in strong favor of the minority plaintiff. I did not have a way to write down the names or cases at the time, but the point was not only clear, but also sadly familiar. We are all aware that politics takes precedence over things most of us would count greater. The United States Senate seems to consider themselves above the accountability they demand of most public servants. Indeed, I suspect most of them only think of the very word “servants” as people they employ, rather than a description of their own office and duties. More than a few Senators have made comments this winter which suggest they plan to wait out President Bush, knowing he will not run for a third term (since such limits are applied to Presidents but not Senators), and wait for a more malleable Chief Executive. Small wonder that the rumor mill is pressing the names of McCain and Clinton, members of “The Club” themselves, for the party nominations, even if the average American would be poorly served by either one as President.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Spies With Nice Ties – The FBI
[ .*.*. ]
Well, the fire is burning nicely, I can see. The previous discussions about the CIA and the NSA have enjoyed a fair amount of discussion, but I find myself amused by the confusion on the Left’s part. Not so much that they still continue to ignore the legality of the electronic intercepts, which they insist on miscalling “wiretaps”, but the fact that liberals continue to obsess on foreign intelligence agencies possibly trampling on their civil rights, when in actual fact the only intelligence agency known to have any history of abusing citizens’ rights, of committing violence against splinter groups, and using force to remove an asylum-seeker from his mother on U.S. soil, is also the primary intelligence agency authorized to conduct domestic surveillance on American citizens – the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI began with a series of events not unlike the present need to match agencies with the needs they faced. In 1908, the Justice Department, tired of having to request help from the Treasury Department when in need of detectives, pressed for the creation of a detective service for the DoJ. On July 26 1908, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte hired nine detectives, thirteen civil rights investigators, and twelve accountants to take on a range of cases deemed important to the Department of Justice. In World War One, the Bureau acquired responsibility for enforcing the Espionage, Selective Service, and Sabotage Acts. From there on, the FBI was the principal government arm for investigating domestic threats to National Security.
In its present identity, the FBI is the agency which most implements the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. If someone flashes a badge and asks your boss about you, it will most likely be the FBI. If someone goes through your trash or follows you on your way to work if you live in the United States, it’s the FBI looking over your shoulder. And its’ the FBI who make the most use of the FISA warrants; because the FBI is a dual-purpose agency, who is at long last allowed to tell intelligence agencies information of value to National Security, but who also has a keen interest in making arrests when a citizen goes dirty.
The FBI also has a very different idea of profile. The CIA hides as someone else, and the NSA simply won’t be seen. The G-men, on the other hand, work up a high profile, very sharp and smooth. Look on television, and you will see no less than a half-dozen major shows where an FBI agent is the hero. Even “The X-Files” foilhead agent Mulder made the Bureau look cool. This is no coincidence. Even from the start, the FBI kept strict rules about dress and appearance, and whatever else was important to J. Edgar Hoover, the man understood public image, and never ceased to boost the profile of the clean-cut government agent as hero.
The Bureau has had more documented cases of abuse than virtually all the other intelligence agencies combined. Yet the FBI also stands out as an efficient and respected group of agents. In addition to hundreds of U.S. offices, the FBI also maintains a number of offices in foreign nations, called Legates. These agents act as a sort of consultant to other nations and to U.S. agencies abroad, providing access to the FBI’s cutting-edge forensics laboratories and analysis facilities. And the FBI has always maintained strong relations with the military – it’s hardly a coincidence that the main FBI training grounds are a Quantico.
Also, it’s worth noting that many intelligence agents join the FBI when they leave the field, and the FBI works in an advisory capacity with many intelligence agencies. Now that’s dressing for success!
Well, the fire is burning nicely, I can see. The previous discussions about the CIA and the NSA have enjoyed a fair amount of discussion, but I find myself amused by the confusion on the Left’s part. Not so much that they still continue to ignore the legality of the electronic intercepts, which they insist on miscalling “wiretaps”, but the fact that liberals continue to obsess on foreign intelligence agencies possibly trampling on their civil rights, when in actual fact the only intelligence agency known to have any history of abusing citizens’ rights, of committing violence against splinter groups, and using force to remove an asylum-seeker from his mother on U.S. soil, is also the primary intelligence agency authorized to conduct domestic surveillance on American citizens – the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI began with a series of events not unlike the present need to match agencies with the needs they faced. In 1908, the Justice Department, tired of having to request help from the Treasury Department when in need of detectives, pressed for the creation of a detective service for the DoJ. On July 26 1908, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte hired nine detectives, thirteen civil rights investigators, and twelve accountants to take on a range of cases deemed important to the Department of Justice. In World War One, the Bureau acquired responsibility for enforcing the Espionage, Selective Service, and Sabotage Acts. From there on, the FBI was the principal government arm for investigating domestic threats to National Security.
In its present identity, the FBI is the agency which most implements the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. If someone flashes a badge and asks your boss about you, it will most likely be the FBI. If someone goes through your trash or follows you on your way to work if you live in the United States, it’s the FBI looking over your shoulder. And its’ the FBI who make the most use of the FISA warrants; because the FBI is a dual-purpose agency, who is at long last allowed to tell intelligence agencies information of value to National Security, but who also has a keen interest in making arrests when a citizen goes dirty.
The FBI also has a very different idea of profile. The CIA hides as someone else, and the NSA simply won’t be seen. The G-men, on the other hand, work up a high profile, very sharp and smooth. Look on television, and you will see no less than a half-dozen major shows where an FBI agent is the hero. Even “The X-Files” foilhead agent Mulder made the Bureau look cool. This is no coincidence. Even from the start, the FBI kept strict rules about dress and appearance, and whatever else was important to J. Edgar Hoover, the man understood public image, and never ceased to boost the profile of the clean-cut government agent as hero.
The Bureau has had more documented cases of abuse than virtually all the other intelligence agencies combined. Yet the FBI also stands out as an efficient and respected group of agents. In addition to hundreds of U.S. offices, the FBI also maintains a number of offices in foreign nations, called Legates. These agents act as a sort of consultant to other nations and to U.S. agencies abroad, providing access to the FBI’s cutting-edge forensics laboratories and analysis facilities. And the FBI has always maintained strong relations with the military – it’s hardly a coincidence that the main FBI training grounds are a Quantico.
Also, it’s worth noting that many intelligence agents join the FBI when they leave the field, and the FBI works in an advisory capacity with many intelligence agencies. Now that’s dressing for success!
Sunday, January 08, 2006
No Such Agency
[*--**-}
If you make a phone call to someone in another country, and use any of a certain lexicon of words, especially in certain combinations, odds are that your conversation has been professionally recorded and analyzed to determine whether or not you represent a threat to the National Security of the United States. Not just in the past few years either, but anytime in the past couple decades. The stories are actually far behind the technology, and the technology is still chasing the need. In case you are curious about who has been listening in on your calls, I can’t give you specific names, but I can assure that the eavesdroppers work for the National Security Agency (NSA).
In true American tradition, and paying homage to the need to advertise everything these days, the NSA has a web site, complete with virtual tour. If you go there, you will note that the NSA site is also linked to something called “Central Security Service” (this is tied to cryptology in specific, and that’s really as far as the NSA/CSS will go about them) . While the site is interesting and attractive, it actual has quite a bit of detail to it, which is a surprise. It’s a savvy place, which not only details the history of the NSA and what it does (officially, anyway), it includes a plan for declassifying historically significant information, and even includes a cartoon character named “T.Top”, a hip hop turtle with a goatee and a team of cartoon friends dubbed “CryptoKids: America’s Future Codemakers and Codebreakers” - it’s a way to get kids interested in the mathematics of cryptology and ciphers, and to give the NSA an idea who’s interested. Hey, it’s no worse than the cookies embedded in the Nickelodeon site. It also shows that the NSA is quite a bit further along in figuring out how to sell themselves to the country, and how to keep silent what they want to protect. As an example, when the story broke (illegally, by the way) about the NSA plan to monitor international electronic communications involving suspected terrorist plans and activities, many Americans accused the CIA of conducting the operations, even though the NSA was specifically named. Even though the NSA is actually as old as the CIA, is far larger in terms of budget, staffing, and allotted resources, it remains largely unknown to most Americans, and even when Hollywood goes after the NSA as a stock villain (a common practice, actually) , the average viewer often does not realize that such an agency really does exist. And unlike the CIA, the NSA is fully authorized, within certain limits, to conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.
But while the NSA is intensely interested in monitoring communications of likely interest, it is even more intent on maintaining something called Information Assurance (IA). To put it in simpler terms, the USA has long held a commanding lead in electronic surveillance and secure communications. This means that our enemies and rivals have been working hard not just to catch up, but to find ways to destabilize our secure communications. Viruses, worms, trojan horses and the like, are not only malicious pranks created by individuals with perverse senses of humor, but are also major programs planned and coordinated with the intent of finding a fatal flaw in our infrastructure. Criminals understand that it’s possible to steal thousands of dollars each from victims, by gaining access to their credit card accounts; governments understand that it is theoretically possible to destablize a government by wrecking confidence in its financial structure, through malicious destruction or corruption of, say, the trade records at the New York Stock Exchange, or the wire transfer protocols of Chase Bank, or any of hundreds of similar scenarios. You may not think that National Security depends on your ability to trust the security of an online purchase or bill pay, but the NSA believes so.
Just something to think about.
If you make a phone call to someone in another country, and use any of a certain lexicon of words, especially in certain combinations, odds are that your conversation has been professionally recorded and analyzed to determine whether or not you represent a threat to the National Security of the United States. Not just in the past few years either, but anytime in the past couple decades. The stories are actually far behind the technology, and the technology is still chasing the need. In case you are curious about who has been listening in on your calls, I can’t give you specific names, but I can assure that the eavesdroppers work for the National Security Agency (NSA).
In true American tradition, and paying homage to the need to advertise everything these days, the NSA has a web site, complete with virtual tour. If you go there, you will note that the NSA site is also linked to something called “Central Security Service” (this is tied to cryptology in specific, and that’s really as far as the NSA/CSS will go about them) . While the site is interesting and attractive, it actual has quite a bit of detail to it, which is a surprise. It’s a savvy place, which not only details the history of the NSA and what it does (officially, anyway), it includes a plan for declassifying historically significant information, and even includes a cartoon character named “T.Top”, a hip hop turtle with a goatee and a team of cartoon friends dubbed “CryptoKids: America’s Future Codemakers and Codebreakers” - it’s a way to get kids interested in the mathematics of cryptology and ciphers, and to give the NSA an idea who’s interested. Hey, it’s no worse than the cookies embedded in the Nickelodeon site. It also shows that the NSA is quite a bit further along in figuring out how to sell themselves to the country, and how to keep silent what they want to protect. As an example, when the story broke (illegally, by the way) about the NSA plan to monitor international electronic communications involving suspected terrorist plans and activities, many Americans accused the CIA of conducting the operations, even though the NSA was specifically named. Even though the NSA is actually as old as the CIA, is far larger in terms of budget, staffing, and allotted resources, it remains largely unknown to most Americans, and even when Hollywood goes after the NSA as a stock villain (a common practice, actually) , the average viewer often does not realize that such an agency really does exist. And unlike the CIA, the NSA is fully authorized, within certain limits, to conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.
But while the NSA is intensely interested in monitoring communications of likely interest, it is even more intent on maintaining something called Information Assurance (IA). To put it in simpler terms, the USA has long held a commanding lead in electronic surveillance and secure communications. This means that our enemies and rivals have been working hard not just to catch up, but to find ways to destabilize our secure communications. Viruses, worms, trojan horses and the like, are not only malicious pranks created by individuals with perverse senses of humor, but are also major programs planned and coordinated with the intent of finding a fatal flaw in our infrastructure. Criminals understand that it’s possible to steal thousands of dollars each from victims, by gaining access to their credit card accounts; governments understand that it is theoretically possible to destablize a government by wrecking confidence in its financial structure, through malicious destruction or corruption of, say, the trade records at the New York Stock Exchange, or the wire transfer protocols of Chase Bank, or any of hundreds of similar scenarios. You may not think that National Security depends on your ability to trust the security of an online purchase or bill pay, but the NSA believes so.
Just something to think about.
PFL Wild Card Round
[<>]
American ConferenceTeddy Roosevelt (16-0) -bye-
Reagan (16-0) -bye-
Washington (16-1) 31, Polk (12-5) 17
Monroe (14-3) 30, Grant (14-3) 6
National ConferenceGeorge W. Bush (16-0) -bye-
Eisenhower (15-1) -bye-
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) 27, Kennedy (11-6) 9
Jefferson (14-3) 24, Truman (13-4) 15
Next Week:
Monroe (14-3) at Teddy Roosevelt (16-0)
Washington (16-1) at Reagan (16-0)
Jefferson (14-3) at George W. Bush (16-0)
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) at Eisenhower (15-1)
American ConferenceTeddy Roosevelt (16-0) -bye-
Reagan (16-0) -bye-
Washington (16-1) 31, Polk (12-5) 17
Monroe (14-3) 30, Grant (14-3) 6
National ConferenceGeorge W. Bush (16-0) -bye-
Eisenhower (15-1) -bye-
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) 27, Kennedy (11-6) 9
Jefferson (14-3) 24, Truman (13-4) 15
Next Week:
Monroe (14-3) at Teddy Roosevelt (16-0)
Washington (16-1) at Reagan (16-0)
Jefferson (14-3) at George W. Bush (16-0)
Franklin Roosevelt (15-2) at Eisenhower (15-1)
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Myth And the CIA
[ --- ]
There are a lot of things believed about the Central Intelligence Agency, which are not rooted in fact. For instance, most people believe that the CIA is the oldest, largest, and most influential intelligence agency in American government, but none of those beliefs are accurate. Also, most Americans can quickly point to a supposed blunder by the CIA, but few are aware of Agency successes. This is actually quite by design. The Agency takes a perverse pride in holding a reputation for bumbling along without a clue; they have learned that such an image can actually cause their enemies to take them too lightly and drop their guard.
This is not to say that the CIA has not made mistakes, even commited crimes outside the scope of their authority, and they have people in their ranks who cannot resist misusing their position to build little empires, to the point of trying to manipulate national politics every so often. It is important to understand the CIA’s role in intelligence, not only as it has been since 1947, but as the new order of National Security designs it.
During World War 2, President Roosevelt often felt that he could not rely on the available intelligence to give him a clear and complete view about what was going on in the world, much less act on it where he would like. Army and Navy Intelligence (AI, ONI) often felt the ire of a frustrated FDR. William Donovan played on this discontent to build support for his own group, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which differed from other intelligence groups not only in terms of size and nature of information, but in Donovan’s belief that intelligence was like eggs; best used while fresh. As a result, OSS teams regularly pursued sabotage and direct application of the information they learned, and while this was not always effective in practice, it was refreshing enough that the OSS gained key support from the FDR Administration, although it made enemies in other parts of the government.
Fascinating as an overview of the Agency’s history might be, for here it is more important to understand that 9/11 radically changed the role and scope of the CIA. For a variety of reasons, the CIA does not generally conduct domestic intelligence operations or surveillance, except in special circumstances. In the world of anti-terrorism operations, this means that the CIA can only serve a limited role, however important its work. Yet review of the conditions and key elements of the 9/11 attacks also reveals the critical need for agents in place - HUMINT - which is the home ground of the Central Intelligence Agency. Also, as the new Director begins to clean house of the political malcontents, the need for a truly balanced focus in the Agency is becoming increasingly evident. As annoying as we may find people like Plame/Wilson, the fact that the New York Time’s recent breach of security most likely began with an Agency source, demonstrates that an overhaul of the Agency is badly overdue. This, of course, was another reason for the CIA’s relative demotion behind the new National Director of Intelligence. I leave the details of that redressing, to the men who have begun its work.
It would not be fitting to dismantle the CIA; the functions the Agency performs remain vital, and many agents perform admirably the responsibilities trusted to them. It is a difficult job at best, to do work that is designed to be ignored, where the hallmark of professional success is for people to think you too dull and stupid to possibly be an effective intelligence agent. Ironic, that liberals celebrate the likes of Plame and Wilson, who have pretended humility while negotiating book deals and magazine covers, all the while missing far greater work done by people whose self-control extends to their ego. Our nation may never know the names of most whose work changes history so directly, but we owe them an environment which does not attack them, either for rumors pursued by the paranoid, or for political intrigues held by empire-builders.
There are a lot of things believed about the Central Intelligence Agency, which are not rooted in fact. For instance, most people believe that the CIA is the oldest, largest, and most influential intelligence agency in American government, but none of those beliefs are accurate. Also, most Americans can quickly point to a supposed blunder by the CIA, but few are aware of Agency successes. This is actually quite by design. The Agency takes a perverse pride in holding a reputation for bumbling along without a clue; they have learned that such an image can actually cause their enemies to take them too lightly and drop their guard.
This is not to say that the CIA has not made mistakes, even commited crimes outside the scope of their authority, and they have people in their ranks who cannot resist misusing their position to build little empires, to the point of trying to manipulate national politics every so often. It is important to understand the CIA’s role in intelligence, not only as it has been since 1947, but as the new order of National Security designs it.
During World War 2, President Roosevelt often felt that he could not rely on the available intelligence to give him a clear and complete view about what was going on in the world, much less act on it where he would like. Army and Navy Intelligence (AI, ONI) often felt the ire of a frustrated FDR. William Donovan played on this discontent to build support for his own group, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which differed from other intelligence groups not only in terms of size and nature of information, but in Donovan’s belief that intelligence was like eggs; best used while fresh. As a result, OSS teams regularly pursued sabotage and direct application of the information they learned, and while this was not always effective in practice, it was refreshing enough that the OSS gained key support from the FDR Administration, although it made enemies in other parts of the government.
Fascinating as an overview of the Agency’s history might be, for here it is more important to understand that 9/11 radically changed the role and scope of the CIA. For a variety of reasons, the CIA does not generally conduct domestic intelligence operations or surveillance, except in special circumstances. In the world of anti-terrorism operations, this means that the CIA can only serve a limited role, however important its work. Yet review of the conditions and key elements of the 9/11 attacks also reveals the critical need for agents in place - HUMINT - which is the home ground of the Central Intelligence Agency. Also, as the new Director begins to clean house of the political malcontents, the need for a truly balanced focus in the Agency is becoming increasingly evident. As annoying as we may find people like Plame/Wilson, the fact that the New York Time’s recent breach of security most likely began with an Agency source, demonstrates that an overhaul of the Agency is badly overdue. This, of course, was another reason for the CIA’s relative demotion behind the new National Director of Intelligence. I leave the details of that redressing, to the men who have begun its work.
It would not be fitting to dismantle the CIA; the functions the Agency performs remain vital, and many agents perform admirably the responsibilities trusted to them. It is a difficult job at best, to do work that is designed to be ignored, where the hallmark of professional success is for people to think you too dull and stupid to possibly be an effective intelligence agent. Ironic, that liberals celebrate the likes of Plame and Wilson, who have pretended humility while negotiating book deals and magazine covers, all the while missing far greater work done by people whose self-control extends to their ego. Our nation may never know the names of most whose work changes history so directly, but we owe them an environment which does not attack them, either for rumors pursued by the paranoid, or for political intrigues held by empire-builders.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Oh Yes We Will
[!]
I have been writing about the fact that we are in a major international conflict, a world war in fact, well worthy of the name. This has prompted discussion and no small debate on the matter, with three significant themes worth examining at closer focus:
* The question about whether wars before the 18th Century could legitmately also be called “World” wars
* Mark Steyn’s dire and sadly compelling essay on the growing demographic threat to Europe from insurgent minorities
* The American will to fight, at the political and civilian level
First, the easiest one. I began my count of “World” wars with the pan-European conflict of the 18th Century, because that was the first major war to take place in both hemispheres, and to feature events of note both North and South of the Equator. Previous campaigns, even when they involved conquering the known world of the day, are hardly in the same scope and impact of the genuine article. For instance, the greatest exploits of Alexander the Great or Caesar made no ripple at all in the courts of Asian kings. The present conflict, however, holds significance not only for the nations and people directly involved, but will determine the course of events for at least a generation to come.
As to demographics, I admit it is an unwise thing to take a position opposite Mr. Steyn, but in this case I think it is necessary. Demographics can be quite useful in determining trends, but it is important to understand that there is a limit to how far any statistic may be employed in predicting the future. It’s worth noting, for example, that during the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a real fear of overpopulation in Europe and most urban areas, based on the demographics of the past generation there. The present condition demonstrates not only that the overpopulation fear was faulty in its assumptions, but also that the present condition can only be sustained if certain key factors continue as they are. Those factors, however, depended on a Europe much different in temperment than the one which I believe may just be waking up. France, for example, is far less keen to remain open-armed to young men who are prone to violence and crime; a backlash is coming, and while the immediate future will be chaotic, lancing the boil now would prove healthy in the long run. England has been less than brilliant in its own immigration policies (there’s a true pandemic, actually), but the spirit of England has not quite died to the point of giving in to thuggery, at least from non-Brits. It will be a tough job, cleaning house in Europe, but the history of Europe shows that when it is needed, men always can be found to set things right. Especially when the alternative is to let another Hitler or Lenin come to pass in their own country.
Now as to America. We are a strange lot, we Yanks. We bicker and fight amongst ourselves on any number of things, but there is a point that a dictator would do well to know and watch; beyond that point we are relentless and unstoppable. I could, and I am tempted, to go into detail as to why it is that America cannot actually be defeated in the manner discussed here, but instead I would just remind our readers of simple history. The U.S. made the mistake of allowing Slavery to be legal in the new nation for almost a century after we freed ourselves from Britain, and the cost to change that condition was bloody indeed, and the war controversial. Yet we fought it, and prevailed, and became stronger in the end for doing so. Protests against the First and Second World Wars were real and strong at times, yet we went in and did the job. Vietnam was an abomination, for many reasons, but we cannot make the mistake of letting that one case represent the whole, or forget that the national spirit is built on better things. Yes, the liberals learned how to lie on the grand stage with the media behind them in Vietnam, but that’s why alternative media has found such strong support, as in talk radio and (of course) blogging. Remember how the Democrats made such a noise in early 2004, that the election was a referendum on the War in Iraq? Well, they were actually right about that, and the election proved that while liberals could rally some to their side, the clear majority chose to support the President. Even after the press tried its best to attck Bush, even after significant questions about Kerry’s own service were suppressed while long-disproven slander against Bush was promoted, even after Democrats denied the facts of actual historical records and tried to cast doubt on the war still being waged, the people trusted the President. Now, of course, the Democrats pretend they never said or did anything out of line - how do we question their patriotism - and hope that their next ambush will yield better results.
By no means will it be easy or short, and we all know very well that after it’s over, the guys who laughed at the men making the tough calls, and who pretended to ‘support the troops', even as they appeared on television shows declaring (where the troops and the terrorists would be sure to hear) that ‘we cannot win’, and doubting the reports of the men on the ground - they will assure us that they were hard at work doing their part for America - how dare we challenge their patriotism.
Real men are hard to find at times, oh yes. But God has always granted us enough to win. So we will. By God, oh yes we will win. Because it’s not about proving a superior culture, or winning on some kind of scoreboard, but because it’s about what kind of world our kids and grandkids will grow up in. And in a Global Society, it’s important that freedom and liberty be established, especially in places where it hasn’t had much of a chance up to now. Oh yes we will, just watch.
I have been writing about the fact that we are in a major international conflict, a world war in fact, well worthy of the name. This has prompted discussion and no small debate on the matter, with three significant themes worth examining at closer focus:
* The question about whether wars before the 18th Century could legitmately also be called “World” wars
* Mark Steyn’s dire and sadly compelling essay on the growing demographic threat to Europe from insurgent minorities
* The American will to fight, at the political and civilian level
First, the easiest one. I began my count of “World” wars with the pan-European conflict of the 18th Century, because that was the first major war to take place in both hemispheres, and to feature events of note both North and South of the Equator. Previous campaigns, even when they involved conquering the known world of the day, are hardly in the same scope and impact of the genuine article. For instance, the greatest exploits of Alexander the Great or Caesar made no ripple at all in the courts of Asian kings. The present conflict, however, holds significance not only for the nations and people directly involved, but will determine the course of events for at least a generation to come.
As to demographics, I admit it is an unwise thing to take a position opposite Mr. Steyn, but in this case I think it is necessary. Demographics can be quite useful in determining trends, but it is important to understand that there is a limit to how far any statistic may be employed in predicting the future. It’s worth noting, for example, that during the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a real fear of overpopulation in Europe and most urban areas, based on the demographics of the past generation there. The present condition demonstrates not only that the overpopulation fear was faulty in its assumptions, but also that the present condition can only be sustained if certain key factors continue as they are. Those factors, however, depended on a Europe much different in temperment than the one which I believe may just be waking up. France, for example, is far less keen to remain open-armed to young men who are prone to violence and crime; a backlash is coming, and while the immediate future will be chaotic, lancing the boil now would prove healthy in the long run. England has been less than brilliant in its own immigration policies (there’s a true pandemic, actually), but the spirit of England has not quite died to the point of giving in to thuggery, at least from non-Brits. It will be a tough job, cleaning house in Europe, but the history of Europe shows that when it is needed, men always can be found to set things right. Especially when the alternative is to let another Hitler or Lenin come to pass in their own country.
Now as to America. We are a strange lot, we Yanks. We bicker and fight amongst ourselves on any number of things, but there is a point that a dictator would do well to know and watch; beyond that point we are relentless and unstoppable. I could, and I am tempted, to go into detail as to why it is that America cannot actually be defeated in the manner discussed here, but instead I would just remind our readers of simple history. The U.S. made the mistake of allowing Slavery to be legal in the new nation for almost a century after we freed ourselves from Britain, and the cost to change that condition was bloody indeed, and the war controversial. Yet we fought it, and prevailed, and became stronger in the end for doing so. Protests against the First and Second World Wars were real and strong at times, yet we went in and did the job. Vietnam was an abomination, for many reasons, but we cannot make the mistake of letting that one case represent the whole, or forget that the national spirit is built on better things. Yes, the liberals learned how to lie on the grand stage with the media behind them in Vietnam, but that’s why alternative media has found such strong support, as in talk radio and (of course) blogging. Remember how the Democrats made such a noise in early 2004, that the election was a referendum on the War in Iraq? Well, they were actually right about that, and the election proved that while liberals could rally some to their side, the clear majority chose to support the President. Even after the press tried its best to attck Bush, even after significant questions about Kerry’s own service were suppressed while long-disproven slander against Bush was promoted, even after Democrats denied the facts of actual historical records and tried to cast doubt on the war still being waged, the people trusted the President. Now, of course, the Democrats pretend they never said or did anything out of line - how do we question their patriotism - and hope that their next ambush will yield better results.
By no means will it be easy or short, and we all know very well that after it’s over, the guys who laughed at the men making the tough calls, and who pretended to ‘support the troops', even as they appeared on television shows declaring (where the troops and the terrorists would be sure to hear) that ‘we cannot win’, and doubting the reports of the men on the ground - they will assure us that they were hard at work doing their part for America - how dare we challenge their patriotism.
Real men are hard to find at times, oh yes. But God has always granted us enough to win. So we will. By God, oh yes we will win. Because it’s not about proving a superior culture, or winning on some kind of scoreboard, but because it’s about what kind of world our kids and grandkids will grow up in. And in a Global Society, it’s important that freedom and liberty be established, especially in places where it hasn’t had much of a chance up to now. Oh yes we will, just watch.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
World War Six – Another Reason George W. Bush Matters
[ *** ]
Back in February 2005 I wrote about the fact that we are in a World War, and not World War 3 but number Six. As events unfold in the middle of this protracted conflict, there is already evidence of the nature and participation in the next campaign. But it is necessary to lay groundwork, to first discuss how we got here.
WORLD WAR ONE – 18th Century, Europe. A series of conflicts for the domination of Europe, primarily between the kingdoms of France and England, but included participation by Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, and proxy conflicts in North America.
WORLD WAR TWO – Early-to-mid 19th Century, North America and Europe. A series of conflicts to wipe out oceanic and open seas piracy. A factor in tensions leading to the U.S. Civil War, as well as trade agreements involving all major seafaring nations.
WORLD WAR THREE – 1914-1925, Europe and Southeast Asia. A significant sustained conflict between England and France on one side, and Germany and Austria on the other, with a number of intermittent allies, most notably the United States. Key events included first widespread battlefield use of WMD, economic warfare in combination with military action, and postwar territory conquest (Japan).
WORLD WAR FOUR – 1935-1947, Europe, Asia, North Africa, coastal North America, various Pacific islands. Nazis, Soviets, Empire of Japan.
WORLD WAR FIVE – 1947-1991, Planet Earth. USA versus the Evil Empire (USSR).
WORLD WAR SIX – 1973-present. USA versus Jihadism.
What each of these wars has in common, include the fact that each lasted longer than people seem to realize, left permanent effects which are still showing up today, and involved every major power of their time. And that’s important to understand the direction of where we are headed.
When WW6 began in 1973, the movement in Jihadism was basically to free the Arab world from domination by the secular powers in Washington and Moscow. This was the political impetus for OPEC, after all, and it should be understood that OPEC paid for terrorist operations to the end of reducing outsider influence in the Middle East. While public comments were restrained, American and Soviet officials were able to track the flow of money and key individuals, and on occasion actually cooperated to prevent the success of certain initiatives. Perhaps the best example of this is the 1981 Osirak raid in Iraq, where Israeli jets attacked a reactor producing weapons-grade plutonium for Saddam’s Nuclear program. While it cannot be proven, rumors have long suggested that U.S. Satellite imagery and Soviet HUMINT provided key data for the Israelis. Yassir Arafat also threw a wrench into the Jihadists’ plans, when he took the OPEC council hostage in 1974, demanding and getting a large ransom of undisclosed amount – the rogue move established the PLO as an independent actor in terrorism, and curtailed OPEC’s interest in funding terrorism. This meant, in practice, that individuals took up the practice, including Saddam Hussein, who saw the applied use of terror as a tool to gain power.
1979 was a watershed year for the Jihadists. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the revolution in Iran, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Saddam’s seizure of power in Iraq combined to radically alter the landscape in the Middle East. Jihadists saw a combination of threat and opportunity. Literally dozens of new terrorist organizations dedicated to Jihad sprang into existence.
Fast forward to 1991. To Jihadist eyes, the American intervention in Kuwait was abhorrent, as much for the display of U.S. power as for the notion of infidel boots in Saudi Arabia, never mind that we had been invited. A relatively minor pace of kidnappings, bombings and assassination against Americans became a focus of renewed interest, especially the desire to hurt Americans at home. It took time to plan and develop, but inexorably led to the 9/11 attacks.
So here we are. The significance of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was not only the destabilization of Al Qaeda’s network and a forceful response to an unprovoked attack, but Bush’s plain demand to choose a side played a card the Jihadists failed to consider; the Lying Mahdi.
Somewhere back in the 10th Century, a Muslim Imam of some repute vanished, with a legend born that he would one day return to establish a Caliphate of great power. The difference between Islam and the West, is that where we have outgrown fairy tales, the legend of the Mahdi is a strong and permanent theme in Islamic culture. And every so often, some nutcase pops up, declares himself the Mahdi and starts an insurrection. It happened several times under the British, and in Algeria under the French at least once. With the current madman in Iran torquing up hate speeches by the day, it would hardly be surprising to hear him claim the title himself. But that is also a weakness in the Islamic culture. That is, they know about the Mahdi legend, but also remember how many false Mahdis there have been, and that those false Mahdis always made things worse for Muslims; empires before the United States were not at all shy in putting down rebellions with as much force as they could bring to bear. Bush’s strong response has not only showed the lie to the Jihadists’ claim that the U.S. is only a paper lion, but hinted at the “false Mahdi” gambit to many in the Middle East. It’s not hard to look at Iraq, and wonder if a stable Iraq wouldn’t be much preferable to the strict and despotic regime in Iran. When businessmen in Saudi Arabia and students in Iran demonstrate for reform, the Jihadists are in trouble.
But the war is far from over, and observers have pointed to a likely future battlefield: Europe. The violence in France was unsettling, not least because the French government was clearly out of its depth in controlling it. One cannot help but wonder if, in 20 or 30 years, a patient but ruthless Muslim revolutionary might not be able to make France or Germany like another Iran or Syria. The impact on the world, in military, political, social, and economic terms, could be devastating.
It is here that the United States finds the potential of some unlikely allies. The governments of China and India have generally taken a wait-and-see attitude in response to U.S. actions, for the obvious reason that neither is keen to see the U.S. dominate the world overtly. Yet neither India nor China has any stomach for the kind of methodology employed by the Jihadists; if China cannot tolerate the practice of peaceful Falun Gong classes in public, one can scarcely imagine how they would like Muslim uprisings along their northern border. And India has enough on its hands watching Pakistan; imagine that threat multiplied by a Muslim power in Europe. So, while both nations prefer a pragmatic policy and will be likely to play both sides against the middle wherever they can, when the crisis point comes to bear, it is in both nations’ interest to work against the Jihadists, rather than with them. And this is again where the mind of George W. Bush comes to play.
Attacking the terrorists in the countries of their own base was the best way to work against another major attack on our own soil. Destroying their network was the best way to prove the lie to their bragging. Establishing democracies in place of the tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq was the best way to show hope in spite of fear. And Bush knows how to read a map, well enough to give India and China the out he knows they will need eventually, even if they themselves do not yet realize that fact.
That’s why we will win.
Back in February 2005 I wrote about the fact that we are in a World War, and not World War 3 but number Six. As events unfold in the middle of this protracted conflict, there is already evidence of the nature and participation in the next campaign. But it is necessary to lay groundwork, to first discuss how we got here.
WORLD WAR ONE – 18th Century, Europe. A series of conflicts for the domination of Europe, primarily between the kingdoms of France and England, but included participation by Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, and proxy conflicts in North America.
WORLD WAR TWO – Early-to-mid 19th Century, North America and Europe. A series of conflicts to wipe out oceanic and open seas piracy. A factor in tensions leading to the U.S. Civil War, as well as trade agreements involving all major seafaring nations.
WORLD WAR THREE – 1914-1925, Europe and Southeast Asia. A significant sustained conflict between England and France on one side, and Germany and Austria on the other, with a number of intermittent allies, most notably the United States. Key events included first widespread battlefield use of WMD, economic warfare in combination with military action, and postwar territory conquest (Japan).
WORLD WAR FOUR – 1935-1947, Europe, Asia, North Africa, coastal North America, various Pacific islands. Nazis, Soviets, Empire of Japan.
WORLD WAR FIVE – 1947-1991, Planet Earth. USA versus the Evil Empire (USSR).
WORLD WAR SIX – 1973-present. USA versus Jihadism.
What each of these wars has in common, include the fact that each lasted longer than people seem to realize, left permanent effects which are still showing up today, and involved every major power of their time. And that’s important to understand the direction of where we are headed.
When WW6 began in 1973, the movement in Jihadism was basically to free the Arab world from domination by the secular powers in Washington and Moscow. This was the political impetus for OPEC, after all, and it should be understood that OPEC paid for terrorist operations to the end of reducing outsider influence in the Middle East. While public comments were restrained, American and Soviet officials were able to track the flow of money and key individuals, and on occasion actually cooperated to prevent the success of certain initiatives. Perhaps the best example of this is the 1981 Osirak raid in Iraq, where Israeli jets attacked a reactor producing weapons-grade plutonium for Saddam’s Nuclear program. While it cannot be proven, rumors have long suggested that U.S. Satellite imagery and Soviet HUMINT provided key data for the Israelis. Yassir Arafat also threw a wrench into the Jihadists’ plans, when he took the OPEC council hostage in 1974, demanding and getting a large ransom of undisclosed amount – the rogue move established the PLO as an independent actor in terrorism, and curtailed OPEC’s interest in funding terrorism. This meant, in practice, that individuals took up the practice, including Saddam Hussein, who saw the applied use of terror as a tool to gain power.
1979 was a watershed year for the Jihadists. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the revolution in Iran, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and Saddam’s seizure of power in Iraq combined to radically alter the landscape in the Middle East. Jihadists saw a combination of threat and opportunity. Literally dozens of new terrorist organizations dedicated to Jihad sprang into existence.
Fast forward to 1991. To Jihadist eyes, the American intervention in Kuwait was abhorrent, as much for the display of U.S. power as for the notion of infidel boots in Saudi Arabia, never mind that we had been invited. A relatively minor pace of kidnappings, bombings and assassination against Americans became a focus of renewed interest, especially the desire to hurt Americans at home. It took time to plan and develop, but inexorably led to the 9/11 attacks.
So here we are. The significance of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was not only the destabilization of Al Qaeda’s network and a forceful response to an unprovoked attack, but Bush’s plain demand to choose a side played a card the Jihadists failed to consider; the Lying Mahdi.
Somewhere back in the 10th Century, a Muslim Imam of some repute vanished, with a legend born that he would one day return to establish a Caliphate of great power. The difference between Islam and the West, is that where we have outgrown fairy tales, the legend of the Mahdi is a strong and permanent theme in Islamic culture. And every so often, some nutcase pops up, declares himself the Mahdi and starts an insurrection. It happened several times under the British, and in Algeria under the French at least once. With the current madman in Iran torquing up hate speeches by the day, it would hardly be surprising to hear him claim the title himself. But that is also a weakness in the Islamic culture. That is, they know about the Mahdi legend, but also remember how many false Mahdis there have been, and that those false Mahdis always made things worse for Muslims; empires before the United States were not at all shy in putting down rebellions with as much force as they could bring to bear. Bush’s strong response has not only showed the lie to the Jihadists’ claim that the U.S. is only a paper lion, but hinted at the “false Mahdi” gambit to many in the Middle East. It’s not hard to look at Iraq, and wonder if a stable Iraq wouldn’t be much preferable to the strict and despotic regime in Iran. When businessmen in Saudi Arabia and students in Iran demonstrate for reform, the Jihadists are in trouble.
But the war is far from over, and observers have pointed to a likely future battlefield: Europe. The violence in France was unsettling, not least because the French government was clearly out of its depth in controlling it. One cannot help but wonder if, in 20 or 30 years, a patient but ruthless Muslim revolutionary might not be able to make France or Germany like another Iran or Syria. The impact on the world, in military, political, social, and economic terms, could be devastating.
It is here that the United States finds the potential of some unlikely allies. The governments of China and India have generally taken a wait-and-see attitude in response to U.S. actions, for the obvious reason that neither is keen to see the U.S. dominate the world overtly. Yet neither India nor China has any stomach for the kind of methodology employed by the Jihadists; if China cannot tolerate the practice of peaceful Falun Gong classes in public, one can scarcely imagine how they would like Muslim uprisings along their northern border. And India has enough on its hands watching Pakistan; imagine that threat multiplied by a Muslim power in Europe. So, while both nations prefer a pragmatic policy and will be likely to play both sides against the middle wherever they can, when the crisis point comes to bear, it is in both nations’ interest to work against the Jihadists, rather than with them. And this is again where the mind of George W. Bush comes to play.
Attacking the terrorists in the countries of their own base was the best way to work against another major attack on our own soil. Destroying their network was the best way to prove the lie to their bragging. Establishing democracies in place of the tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq was the best way to show hope in spite of fear. And Bush knows how to read a map, well enough to give India and China the out he knows they will need eventually, even if they themselves do not yet realize that fact.
That’s why we will win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
