Pinkerton's article may contain some useful information, but was anybody else as impressed as I was that Pinkerton apparently thinks that if Krauthammer says it then it's US policy? What a dweeb! :-(

A better idea than for Darfur and the US goal of ending genocide courtesy of Democracy Arsenal
June 05, 2005
Top 10 Things To Do for Darfur Short of U.S. Military Intervention

Kevin asks whether we ought to be prepared to send in armed troops to stop genocide. My answer is yes, provided we think we can get the job done and there isn’t an equivalent or better alternative to get the killing stopped. Given the weaknesses of the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed, I assume the operation would ordinarily be eminently doable.

But one of the worst things about our single-handed Iraq invasion is that for the first time in recent memory a legitimate question can be raised about whether the U.S. is over-extended to the point where we cannot assume new military obligations. As a political matter, Iraq has also made it tough to contemplate mounting another challenging military intervention. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but it does suggest that we won’t. Progressives need to look beyond the a false dichotomy of either proposing a military intervention that is a political non-starter, or keeping a low profile on the Darfur tragedy out of an abashed sense that we don't know how to fully solve it.

If we right away did everything possible short of sending combat troops, we’d save a lot of lives, and make an eventual U.S. military role more feasible (and maybe even less necessary). I am no expert on Darfur, but those that are suggest that these are some places to start:

[Marshal "Smokin' Joe" Katzman: Robert, it's not cool to paste content in full from another site, without a link. Follow the instructions next the the comment form, and add one. Folks, here's the link to the rest of this article. ]

"The director of the CIA is no longer automatically present at the President's National Security Council and Homeland Security Council meetings. Instead, the director is present at the President's pleasure. The new director of National Intelligence, who is also now responsible for compiling the Presidential Daily Briefing, takes his place."

That is going to make a big difference.

I'm trying to imagine a less relevant response to James Pinkerton's link-filled article than Kirk Parker's. Can't.

Counter-questions:

• Why couldn't Dr. Krauthammer be describing U.S. policy, especially given that "sharing the nightmares" seems to be exactly what's going on re: East Asia policy?

• And why, in a link filled article re: the dynamics of proliferation, followed by a series of in-depth Winds features on this subject, would a serious commenter go bannanas because Charles Krauthammer was mentioned in one paragraph somewhere?

Kirk, is there a particular reason that you're trying to completely avoid the substance of Pinkerton's article, or did we just catch you on a bad day?

Hmm, well i think on one hand Pinkerton is restating the obvious, the NPT is obeyed by those who have an interest in obeying it and hence is essentially failing as circumstances change. But that goes for every international treaty. Treaties only are as strong as their enforcement mechanism, which is always the relative power of the other participants and willingness to use it. But since that power to deter is there anyway regardless of treaty, whats the point of the treaty? Those who have an interest in defying the treaty as well as the power to get away with it will break the treaty, those who cant wont. Such is the way of international 'law' since nations were invented. In my opinion, the only utility of a treaty is to put a smiley face on an unpleasant reality, the treaty is an implicit threat of one or more nations to others. Turn a negative into a positive, the bigger power doesnt look like a bully and the weaker doesnt look chastened. When that dynamic changes over time the treaty evolves or evaporates. The only trap is pretending the treaty itself has some deeper meaning or greater power, at the end of the day it all comes back to the threat. In that sense it is not law at all, but closer to vigilante justice. There is certainly no neutral arbiter to hand down punishment, and its a dangerous game to pretend that such a thing exists.
Which leads me to my resonse to Pinkerton, and that is dont speak so soon. Bush has flat out said Iran will not be allowed nuclear weapons. If you take him at his word (which is wise i think), that changes the entire dynamic. If Iran is somehow prevented from going nuclear, NK goes back to seeming a single rogue anamoly and things look immediately brighter. It all comes back to what can we do to stop nations from breaking the treaty, and are we willing to do them. Buts that all nonproliferation has meant all along.

MY TWO CENTS

Short version for Joe ;-)

Afgan:

A worthwhile program deserving of our support. A secret capitalistic weapon in the GWOT. See post at LGF

*****
Iran:

Subtitle the MSM is no longer relevant!

Dr. Zin could use everyone's support.

"Please see this excerpt from Dr.Zin's site re his campaign for Iranian
freedom. Please remember the Iranian Regime will go nuclear soon. If the
efforts of Dr.Zin and others who are working to ensure the free flow of
news/info - THE TRUTH, both into, within, and from Iran are successful,
this would be "peanuts" in comparision to a full fledged assault!"

The Most Lethal Weapon in the GWOT is THE TRUTH!

Read here at LGF

*****
Long Beach/LA Port:

DAH! How about screening containers and trucks entering the port!
See here [Scroll down to The Event Clock is Ticking . . .]

*****
Border Issue and WMD Bioweapons:

I'm a little more pesimistic than Tom Oren that the event horizon for bio-weaps is some 20 yrs out. Don't forget what the English did to the French in the French-Indian Wars (1754-1763). We have a very cunning, patient, and resourceful enemy from the 12th Century that has a penchent for coming in under the radar with low-tech weapons e.g. flying fuel bombs.

Read More

Slightly OT

And I don't mean weaponized anthrax either. Now on the otherhand I wouldn't overlook a possibility of some greedy folks (pharma industry) hyping and riding the tail of the anthrax scare for purely profit driven reasons.

Before dismissing this one, just remember the one thing consistant with the government's published statements here are that they are inconsistant. The last I checked before it fell off the front page, the FBI was still dredging ponds in Maryland pursuing the "mad scientist theory" re the 9/11 anthrax letters.

Don't wish to be a conspiracy theorist but this is what crooks do all the time when they are not being trutful :-)

Read More

*****
Intel Collection/Organizational Structure re et al re Domestic Prepardness:

New policy/position statement from The Int'l Assn of Chiefs' of Police.

Four years post 9/11, the brass of local/state/regional LE have come to the conclusion that the "White Horse from DC" will not be coming to town to the rescue anytime soon.

We must organize from bottom up, be fluid, and quick to respond to changes in the environment. Finally and most importantly we must breakout of our reactionary mindset and to engage in strategic forward thinking.

[My opinion] We're wasting a lot of scarce resources providing a false sense of security to the American people.

[...]

Read More

The new National Inteligence director, Negroponte, does not currently have a permanent office. That office is slated to be on Bollingbrook(sp?) AFB in D.C., in a Defense Inteligence Agency (DIA) building.

This would seem to me that the CIA is being further cut out of the loop. Someone close to me, working in the DIA (low level) said the scuttlebut is that the CIA likes it that way.