In the WSJ on Friday is an article by staff writer Anne Jolis that implicates the French in the 1994 Rwandan massacres. Seriously, and both in a way that demands more research to make an absolute claim and that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

"I tell you as I saw it," says Fidéle Simugomwa, a former Hutu-extremist militia chief during the Rwandan genocide, as he sits for an interview with French documentary-maker Serge Farnel. "The French soldiers were standing on the hill, and firing down at the Tutsi. . . . We had a sign so the French didn't shoot at us--[we had] leaves on."

One by one, the ex-génocidaires whom Mr. Farnel films tell the same story: Namely, that on May 13, 1994, small teams of white men they describe as "French soldiers," clad in fatigues and riding in jeeps or trucks, gathered at lookout points in the backwoods of western Rwanda. They fired into the Bisesero hills, scaring the Tutsi out of hiding. They then aimed directly at the fleeing men, women, and children. When the shooting stopped, the Hutu killers moved into the hills. Wielding machetes, lances, nail-spiked clubs, and their own guns, they finished off the wounded. A score of survivors recounted the same version of events to me.

Read the whole thing (including disclaimers by the French).

Update: If you don't believe the French could be so bloody-minded, here is a passage from "The Clinton Tapes":

Clinton said US Allies in Europe blocked proposals to adjust or remove the embargo [the arms embargo on Muslim Bosnia]. the justified their argument on humanitarian grounds, arguing that more arms would only fuel the bloodshed, but privately, said the president, key allies objected that an independent Bosnia would be "unnatural" as the only Muslim nation in Europe. He said they favored the embargo precisely because it locked in Bosnia's disadvantage. Worse, he added, they parried numerous alternatives as a danger to the some eight thousand European peacekeepers deployed in Bosnia to safeguard emergency shipments of food and medical supplies.

...

When I expressed shock at such cynicism, reminiscent of the blind-eye diplomacy regarding the plight of Europe's Jews during World War II, President Clinton only shrugged. He said president Francois Mitterand of France had been especially blunt in saying that Bosnia did not belong, and that British officials also spoke of a painful but realistic restoration of Christian Europe.
pp 9 - 10

-

« ok, I'm done now

Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain.

There are several ways to extend the lethality of the infantry. A more effective 5.56-mm bullet can be designed which provides enhanced terminal performance out to 500 meters. A better option to increase incapacitation is to adopt a larger caliber cartridge, which will function using components of the M16/M4. The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics - Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I.

The reorganization of the infantry squad in 1960 eliminated the M1D sniper rifle and resulted in the loss of the precision mid-range capability of the infantry squad. The modern solution to this problem is the squad designated marksman. The concept of the squad designated marksman is that a soldier receives the training necessary to engage targets beyond the 300-meter range limitation of current marksmanship programs, but below the 600 meter capability of actual snipers. As of June 2009, the equipment and training of the squad designated marksman has yet to be standardized. In field manual 3-22.9 there are only fourteen pages dedicated to training the squad designated marksman.

The introduction goes on:

Combat in Afghanistan has shown several trends. The enemy takes advantage of the terrain and engages patrols or convoys from high ground. He also combines this advantage with heavy weapons systems and mortars from a distance, typically beyond 300 meters.6 From the infantryman's perspective, he attempts to fix the enemy, since his equipment limits his ability to maneuver, and attempts to kill the enemy through close air support (CAS), close combat attack, (CCA) or indirect fire.

The infantryman's ability to fix or kill the enemy with organic weapon systems at distances beyond 200 meters is limited by his equipment and training. The incapacitation mechanism of small caliber bullets, such as the 5.56-mm, comes primarily from bullet fragmentation.7 Bullet fragmentation occurs only at a sufficiently high velocity. All 5.56-mm weapons are most effective when employed within 200 meters due to velocity limitations. Once contact is made, the fight is limited to machine gunners, mortars and designated marksmen. In the table of organization for a light infantry company8 only the six -M240B 7.62-mm machine guns, two- 60-mm mortars and nine designated marksman armed with either 7.62-mm M14 rifles or accurized 5.56-mm M16A4's rifles are able to effectively engage the enemy. These weapons systems represent 19 percent of the company's firepower. This means that 81 percent of the company has little effect on the fight. This is unacceptable.

If what the author suggests is accurate - that these issues and combat scenarios are prevalent in Afghanistan - this is a significant and immediate issue.

In lay terms, the problems are twofold.

One is equipment - the 5.56mm caliber M4 rifles that the typical soldier is armed with have an effective range between 150 - 200m, assuming they are using M855 ammunition (this is based on my ballistic tables for that round and a required terminal velocity of about 2500fps to achieve bullet fragmentation - otherwise it's just a very fast .22). If his analysis is correct, and the typical engagement is beyond 300m, even longer barreled M15's with higher muzzle velocity would be of limited effectiveness.

In addition, the typical optics for a M4 have a red dot that is 2 or 4 MOA (inches of displacement at 100 yards). At 300 yards, at best, the sights will make it more challenging to hit a 10" circle (lethal zone for a person); the sights are optimized for quick sight picture at very close range.

The other issue is training and doctrine. Jeff Cooper said (in The Art of The Rifle):

The armed forces of today have almost abandoned the idea of serious riflecraft. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that rifle mastery is a demanding discipline and thus not really applicable to mass armies.

When Biggest Guy deployed, his platoon had one soldier with a M14 with a variable high-power scope (note that that soldier also had a M4 with a grenade launcher).

That's a 7.62mm rifle that is potentially effective out to 1000 yards, and readily effective out to 600 - 700.

Here's a picture of TG shooting mine:

(actually, I just like pictures of her shooting...)

The author makes two concrete suggestions.

One goes to doctrine and training:

The most immediate and cost effective improvements can be made through training and education. Soldiers and leaders need to understand the capabilities and limitations of their organic weapons. They need to understand what is required to maintain their weapons and keep them operational in all environments. This process begins in either basic training, or the basic officer leader course, and should continue through unit marksmanship programs. Equipment and organization need to be modernized.

The current 5.56-mm cartridge has limited application in open or mountainous terrain and should be improved, augmented, or replaced. A move to an intermediate caliber weapon or replacement upper receiver will increase the organic capability of the infantry squad and not substantially increase the soldiers load. By adopting an arms room concept, commanders will be able to choose the right equipment for the type of mission and terrain they face.9 Finally, doctrine should be reviewed and re-written to incorporate the capability to engage targets out to 500 meters. This doctrine should also include an updated qualification course, which more accurately simulates combat conditions and rewards shot placement. This type of course will give better feedback to the soldier and commander.

The other to equipment. He suggests that the military decide on and procure an 'intermediate' cartridge - the 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC - and a supply up upper receivers and magazines to accommodate them, as well as improved optics - Trijicon ACOGs or Aimpoint with auxiliary magnification.

If you're at all interested in this issue, this paper is a great read. Among many other things that I don't touch on, it provides an excellent capsule history of military calibers.

I've not taken sides on the 5.56 squabble; but if in fact the engagements are frequently at 200 - 500m, we have to do something to increase the effective firepower of the troops.

For myself, knowing this, it makes me far happier to hear that Biggest Guy has graduated from a 5.56mm M249 SAW to a 7.62mm M240.
-

« ok, I'm done now

"The responsible pilot now had very little time to choose the correct flight angle and the correct engine thrust. This is the only way he could be certain to keep flying on a stable course and maintain steady airflow across the wings if he didn't know the plane's actual speed. The co-pilot must therefore look up the two safe values in a table in the relevant handbook -- at least that's the theory. "In practice, the plane is shaken about so badly that you have difficulty finding the right page in the handbook, let alone being able to decipher what it says," says Arnoux."

As we hand over more high-powered mechanical devices to software operations based on thousands or even millions of lines of code, with limited auditability given the number of potential interactions, these kinds of question are going to surface more and more often.

« ok, I'm done now

This case will make a big splash in the news, so here's a quick primer. The Bill of Rights binds Congress. The second amendment applied in Heller because Congress is in charge of the District of Columbia. In order to understand the issue before the court you must know that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten amendments adopted in 1791) does not apply to the states as such. See, e.g. U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) 92 U.S. 542. Instead, the court has selectively made provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This substantive due process analysis asks the question whether a particular right is so fundamental that it is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" so that it must be binding on the states. For example, in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 at 324-25 (1937) the court found that the fifth amendment right against double jeopardy is of such a fundamental nature that it is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus binding on the states.

The court did not need to take this path of substantive due process analysis. http://www.bartelby.com/119/1.html (Frost). It could have, and probably should have said that the Bill of Rights is binding on the states by virtue of the privileges and immunities clause in the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If there is a second amendment right to bear arms as a U.S. citizen, which the court has found in Heller, the court's analysis might be that states may not abridge the "privileges and immunities," broadly understood as rights, granted by the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. However, this argument is foreclosed without some serious backtracking because for the past 139 years, since The Slaughterhouse Cases, the court has gone down a different path - the path of substantive due process.

In McDonald the NRA is challenging the gun control measures of the cities of Oak Park and Chicago. The substantive due process path the court has taken for the past 139 years presents a problem for the claimants. Is the right to own a gun without registration so fundamental that it is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty?" The answer to this question is not so clear. Based on substantive due process analysis, you might think that the concepts of federalism, state rights, and public interest to exercise the police power to control gun violence should trump an individual's right to pack a Saturday night special in a crowded bar without a permit. For this reason, the NRA in McDonald is asking the court to overturn 139 years of constitutional doctrine, to go back to the road not taken in The Slaughterhouse Cases, and make the second amendment directly applicable to the states through the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

The popular view is that Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would be willing to do this. They are not fans of substantive due process analysis. Among other things, substantive due process analysis has been used to create rights that are not enumerated anywhere in the constitution, e.g. the right of privacy (Griswold, Roe). The whole movement of originalist interpretation has fought against this. It may be that these four justices would be willing to go back 139 years, declare the path of substantive due process a mistake and a dead end, and make the entire Bill of Rights applicable to the states through the privileges and immunities clause. This would invite attack on all of the substantive due process cases based on "privacy" and other unenumerated rights.

Throwing out 139 years of constitutional history would be a revolutionary act. The implications would be far reaching and unpredictable. For this reason, my money is on Kennedy joining the liberal wing of the court and rejecting the privileges and immunities argument in this case. If so, the likely outcome will be that the 2nd Amendment will not be made applicable to the states because the right to be free from gun control legislation is not so fundamental as to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Stay tuned.
-

« ok, I'm done now

Gallo and the teachers initially agreed they wanted the transformation model, which would protect the teachers' jobs.

But talks broke down when the two sides could not agree on what transformation entailed.

Gallo wanted teachers to agree to a set of six conditions she said were crucial to improving the school. Teachers would have to spend more time with students in and out of the classroom and commit to training sessions after school with other teachers.

But Gallo said she could pay teachers for only some of the extra duties. Union leaders said they wanted teachers to be paid for more of the additional work and at a higher pay rate - $90 per hour rather than the $30 per hour offered by Gallo.

And from Los Angeles:

Los Angeles Unified School District, with its 885 schools and 617,000 students, educates one in every 10 children in California. It also mirrors a troubled national system of teacher evaluations and job security that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says must change. Recent articles in the Los Angeles Times have described teachers who draw full pay for years while they sit at home fighting allegations of sexual or physical misconduct.

But the far larger problem in L.A. is one of "performance cases" - the teachers who cannot teach, yet cannot be fired. Their ranks are believed to be sizable - perhaps 1,000 teachers, responsible for 30,000 children. But in reality, nobody knows how many of LAUSD's vast system of teachers fail to perform. Superintendent Ramon Cortines tells the Weekly he has a "solid" figure, but he won't release it. In fact, almost all information about these teachers is kept secret.

I still believe it. Fire them all, and start over.

Personally, I think that districts need to be smaller - our home district in Torrance has 4 high schools, which seems to be about the right size for a school district, and offers the chance for parental engagement at the school board level, which is necessary to maintain accountability.

But basically, there's a point when an organization just isn't functioning and is harming those it is supposed to help.
-

« ok, I'm done now

Why is fact-checking Lomborg awful? Because you ...ewww ... have to read him?

Sorry, Sharon, but that's just unworthy of anyone who would claim to be 'NEWSWEEK's science editor.' Or if not, it tells me something about Newsweek.

Look, I don't think Lomborg has a chokehold on truth in this complex issue. Nor do I think Steve McIntyre - or Phil Jones - does.

But I do think that the story is clear - that Jones et alia undermined the necessary process of science - through error cascade, groupthink, or deliberate policy - enough to move AGW into the 'possible but unproven' category.

What we need is constructive, transparent, respectful discussion that tries to sift the facts from the claims.

In her review, she makes reasonable claims that three of Lomborg's claims are not supported by his citations. That's serious. It would be more serious if she'd taken the time to map out Lomborg's arguments and claim that - as a hypothetical - he makes 15 major claims and 10 minor claims and that of the 5 major claims that were checked, 4 of them were unsupported by his footnotes.

As it is, we have a science writer who is apparently virulently anti-Lomborg (see lede) citing a media critic's anecdotal claims that several of Lomborg's claims aren't supported by his citations.

Lomborg responded on his website (pdf)...it's worth checking out. If reading him doesn't curdle your stomach, as it appears to do to Ms. Begley.

Update: Just read the Lomborg reply, and it's pretty scathing about Friel's claims. The fact that Begley doesn't address the direct hits Lomborg seems to make further undermines not his credibility, but hers.

Instapundit visitors - check out the good news on climate research...
-

« ok, I'm done now

Both terrorists and muckers (see definition) do the same things - if you take the actions out of context, they look alike. But that's just it - by taking the actions of of context, you're depriving them of their meaning, and in doing that I'll argue one risks making some serious mistakes.

Muckers arise from anomie; from the spiritual/philosophical crisis that seems to run through modernity (one reaction, and one belief, is the orgasmic self-destruction contained in the Romantic ideal at the heart of Bad Philosophy). Muckers are essentially random, and somewhat self-generating. They will be triggered by personal issues (I'm hearing that the Austin mucker's wife was leaving him after a trail of business failures and tax crises), but a generalized 'failure to thrive' socially. they may hang their actions on a hook - anti-cop in the case of the Washington or Oakland muckers - but there is no coherent philosophy behind muckerdom and there is no social change we could make that would accommodate them.

And, more importantly, there is no organized social movement working to grow them.

Terrorists, on the other hand, act less out of anomie than out of belief; out of a social construct that extends well past them and lionizes their behavior - thereby helping grow the next generation.

Rehov's film is about Islam, but there are other ideologies that have done this; early militant Christianity certainly did, and today you see it in the black nationalist movement and their counterparts in the various white power movements; they key word here isn't 'black' or 'white' or 'Islamic' - it's movement.

The pressures of modern society shake loose a certain number of people who finally go amok; but certain belief systems are growing up that not only want to harness that drift, but seek to encourage it so that they can harvest the violence that it breeds.

The crazy antitax movements that the Austin mucker (I deliberately obscure his name) was on the fringes of didn't have in their core doctrines the belief that you should blow up tax buildings. When they do - when that becomes a part of the pernicious beliefs that get espoused there - then these acts will have moved to the category of terrorism and we should treat them as such.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no acceptable government security response to muckers. I think that there are a number of things that government should do to improve the economy, to improve its own legitimacy, to help rebuild a narrative of America that we can participate in emotionally and spiritually.

But practically? not so much.

There are a number of appropriate responses to movements that mean to grow muckers, however. Working to dismantle those movements is absolutely the right thing to do, and the possibility of dismantling the movements at the root or terrorist acts is what distinguishes terrorism from simple acts of mindless rage.
-

« ok, I'm done now

...and this ties into David Niewert, who is anxious to tie this into his "big truth" about Angry White People.

Because we have a problem; we are growing muckers, who individually may just decide to go shoot someone, or a cop or four, or people in an airport. Or they may get together with a few others - in a kind of crazy underground cell - and blow up a building.

Or fly their small plane into one.

And some of these muckers are bound by ideology...white nationalist, black nationalist, salafist...and they tend to find each other (the Internet is very good for that).

And so we have a problem in our society - in our world.

It goes back to the roots of what I've talked about for some time - my big idea, I guess - about Bad Philosophy. Until we find beliefs that can mend hearts, I fear that we are in for a lot of this...
-

« ok, I'm done now

Instead of eat, Corporal Snark gave Major ---- de Coverly a loyalty oath to sign. Major ---- de Coverly swept it away with mighty displeasure the moment he recognized what it was, his good eye flaring up blindingly with fiery disdain and his enormous old corrugated face darkening in mountainous wrath.

"Gimme eat, I said," he ordered loudly in harsh tones that rumbled through the silent tent like claps of distant thunder.

Corporal Snark turned pale and began to tremble. He glanced toward Milo pleadingly for guidance. For several terrible seconds there was not a sound. Then Milo nodded.

"Give him eat," he said.

Corporal Snark began giving Major ---- de Coverly eat. Major ---- de Coverly turned from the counter with his tray full and came to a stop. His eyes fell on the groups of other officers gazing at him in mute appeal, and with righteous belligerence, he roared:

"Give everybody eat!"

"Give everybody eat!" Milo echoed with joyful relief, and the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade came to an end.

"Give everybody eat!"...if only it was somehow that simple.
-

« ok, I'm done now

While few Democratic bloggers are big fans of mine, I have always at core been a Democrat. I really did believe that a new President, who followed the dicta of openness and who put down the partisan cudgels might be able to make desperately-needed change happen in Washington.

I really did believe that my leaders in Sacramento would wake up as the car approached the edge of the cliff and turn us away.

And I was naive on both counts - first, for believing that Obama meant what he said, or that the clowns sitting in the California Legislature were capable of change.

I really didn't want to write anything about this, because it just seemed - whiny and unhappy.

But my more-mainstream-liberal friend Kevin Drum broke the ice for me today...

...rejecting the eminently qualified and reasonable Maldonado for the inconsequential job of lieutenant governor - apparently because Dems were unwilling to allow a Hispanic Republican to gain a higher profile - was both stupid and loathsome. And making the repeal of Prop 11 [the antigerrymandering proposition - AL] their highest priority is - well, let's just go with stupid and loathsome again. These guys aren't really worth a trip to the thesaurus.

The depth of California's political suckitude is hard to fathom. It's like a contest from hell, where both parties try to outdo each other in sleaze and contemptibility. Republicans have a pretty big lead, but it's not insurmountable. Apparently Democrats are out to prove it.

I feel like I'm watching all my worst predictions come true...the hollowing out of the US job markets and economy...the political and business elites ignoring the impending crises in order to cling (bitterly) to power and advantage...the reinforced 'iron rice bowl' of rent-seeking by public sector employees, politicians, and corporations - all seeking to mutually reinforce their positions on the backs of the rest of us.

It's going to stop. It'll stop when we finally gather the political will to do something about it, or else it will stop when it simply can't go on any further and crashed to the ground. I'd prefer the former...

We are led by good people who are trapped within a system that transforms them into the 'stupid and loathesome.' We need to fix that...
-

« ok, I'm done now

Defense is no exception. In 2010, over 680 billion dollars have been budgeted for the Defense Department, in addition to as much as $350 billion in defense related spending outside the DOD. This accounts for over 40% of military spending across the globe. It is immaterial whether this level of spending is justified, as it is simply unsustainable given our level of debt. It is in our national interest to examine our current defense philosophy and attempt to craft an intelligent new policy in line with the realities of a new century.

With the Cold War long over and the Terror War simmering, America must first reexamine our place in the world and commitment to power projection. Winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a trillion dollar enterprise that the country shows little appetite for repeating, and once they are decided we would do well to rethink our projection posture before launching a knee-jerk procurement course in expectation of similar wars in the future. This, along with the (expensive) relics of our Cold War era thinking will overwhelm our resources and leave less room for confronting more likely threats in the coming years. Intercontinental ballistic missiles and up-armored humvees are not going to deter rogue nations or a resurgent China, largely because we will not be conducting a preemptive nuclear strike, nor another IED riddled occupation, and everybody knows it.

Instead we should be focusing on the realistic ways our technology can justifiably deter these enemies at much more sustainable costs. UAVs and smart weapons are not the wave of the future, they are the reality of the present, and they have changed our ability to project force like nothing since the invention of the airplane. These systems are affordable, humane, and proven, and they should be the front line deterrent of a new defense doctrine.

The traditional American concept of warfare may be to meet and defeat an enemy upon the (foreign) fields of battle, but it needs to be recognized that such warfare, no matter how successful, is a result of multiple failures of diplomacy, foresight, and deterrence. Perhaps the most ancient truism regarding warfare is that the greatest victories are won before a shot is fired. America needs to re-embrace this fact and rely upon our unrivaled powers and the threats of those powers long before an actual fight can break out.

In a sense, the Bosnian War should be a model for future conflicts. We can reliably and nearly instantly reduce a belligerent nation's ability to provide for the basic needs of its people by destroying power, infrastructure, communications, and ultimately natural resource production. Coupled with embargo and interdiction, this makes provoking the military might of the United States a losing proposition whatever the potential gain in question. All this can be done for virtually no risk to American lives and less expense than a month fighting in Afghanistan.

This strategy, like any, has caveats. One certain criticism is a recognition that airpower has never won a war. This is true and will remain true in our traditional definition of conventional total victory. However, historically speaking, the idea of defeating an enemy on the battlefield and forcing his unconditional surrender is more the exception than the rule. Worse, these types of victories often plant the seeds of the next war.

Hence, classic capitulation is not necessarily a wise goal in this context. Unconditional surrender is expensive in both blood and treasure. Many times, simply being willing to leave your enemy in worse shape than you are and walk away is a more credible threat than marshalling the resources needed for regime change (much less occupation). As it is our enemies may well feel a sense of security in recognizing our binary approach to warfare, ie either peace or conquest. It is easy for rogue regimes like Iran to play at brinkmanship with us so long as they fail to incite us into full scale conventional warfare with the expectation of total victory.

On the other hand, if a rogue regime like Iran had reason to fear a limited American strike (but not too limited, as often demonstrated in our past) that would truly cripple the enemy but leave America hardly troubled, we might actually see our security and interests better protected. This requires far more than simple pinpricks, but far less than actual regime change.

International cooperation and (ideally) consent is critical, both materially and morally. A rogue nation must feel isolated and helpless for the full psychological effect to take hold. Ultimately, the physical weakening of the regime combined with the isolation and destitution of the populace (or threat thereof) will be enough to either bring a favorably negotiated conclusion, or (as in the case of Bosnia) full scale regime change.

None of this is to say we won't fund our more conventional and traditional forces, particularly ground forces. We must and will, and they must be prepared for the worst. But full scale land battles must be a last resort, and not the first.

The United States is certain to undergo a difficult and painful reckoning in the near future. Every aspect of our relationship with government will be examined and will very likely see a reduction in accustomed resources. If this is done in an ad hoc manner, particularly regarding defense, our national security will suffer in unpredictable ways. This is not to say we should ever think to abandon the traditional winning tools of a professional multi-branch military, but instead to examine every element of these entities with a careful eye towards a forward looking strategy. And this must mean tough decisions and excepting that we cannot afford every weapon systems even if it might serve quite well. In the bigger picture, it will cost us more dearly than we think.

Now is the time to reexamine our strategic vision for our projection of power, and to reassess the tools and strategies we have developed and are developing. By embracing the technological and practical realities we are faced with, we can come through this period with a stronger defense and more robust deterrent, and indeed a safer and more peaceful world.
-

« ok, I'm done now

Probably in partnership with Saudi firms, who will take care of the required bribes, all in return for slight adjustments in their workshare and payment rates over the life of the contract. Very likely even with partners and workshare/ recompense set, in part, by the Saudi authorities themselves as part of the deal. The foreign firms, whomever they may be, could end up becoming sub-contractors to Saudi firms, at least as far as the deal's official structure goes.

Anti-corruption laws do make a dent, but only in the small things, or in states without the combination of corruption and a culture of impunity. As long as they're determined to be corrupt on an official level, there will always be ways around it.

It will also be interesting to watch the consequences as more and more foreign firms from China, Brazil, Pakistan, India, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, et. al. continue to enter the global market for high-end weapon systems. Many of those states (plus Russia, plus France) have very different ideas about global anti-corruption laws, and are unlikely to conform.

As choices expand in the global arms marketplace - a trend that is already irreversible - anti-corruption laws will be only one area where the West's ability to influence global military developments is going to decline.

« ok, I'm done now

The last time was in 2006, when we sold our minivan and bought a Civic Hybrid.

We didn't want a Prius, because TG has an irrational (or given recent news, entirely rational...) dislike of Toyotas, and I didn't like the idea of a 'statement' car. We bought it, first and foremost, for the HOV lane stickers, but also because I thought it was neat technology, and because I do think that cutting back on our energy consumption in non-hair shirt ways is a good thing to do.

Note that I really don't see hybrids as all that environmentally benign, so our plate - ECO FROD - reflected that.

Well, at the end of this year, the HOV stickers on hybrids expire, and probably won't be renewed, and we've put 60,000 miles on ours with decent - not great, not terrible - results. We had to replace the main battery (warranty) but it was brain damage to get the local dealer - Scott Robinson Honda, who does Honda's fleet cars (American Honda is here in Torrance) struggled for a bit to deal with the driveability problems caused by the dying battery, but once I escalated they were great in getting it all dealt with.

So - no stickers soon, a car with hypercomplex technical systems and a so-so support chain. Sounds like time to reconsider what we'd do.

I kicked the issue over to my frugality friend at Downturn Living, and she and her readers were clear that the frugal, economically sensible thing was to keep the car.

So of course we decided not to.

Instead, this Friday, we bought a new 2009 Honda Civic GX - a natural gas powered car.

I was initially kind of anxious about a NGV - just that the logistics of refuelling are more complex (there are some 26 fuelling stations in the parts of Southern California where we typically go - and I worry that TG, who tends to run her vehicles on fumes would wind up getting towed.

But I put them all into a map and loaded it into our Garmin, and so far - after 4 days and 300 miles - it's been pretty darn easy.

Home filling stations are (sort of) available - the Phill brand went BK and may be releaunched - but I'm unsure of the economics for someone who drives as little as we do. We do long trips, and the odds are that we'll be renting more for that - I'd guess that 10K of the hybrid's miles are on road trips.

And the new car is interesting - really downmarket and defeatured compared to our hybrid, which not only has a leather interior but is in a far higher state of trim. It's a real fleet car...just the basics. We'll invest in a decent stereo and leave it at that, I'm thinking.

We bought the car through our credit union's car-buying service, and got a great deal on it. Thanks to Jeff Wyrick and Auto Expert Online...and over the next year or so I'll report on our experience with it.

Back in the 70's I read Amory Lovin's Soft Energy Paths and noted his belief in building out a NG infrastructure as a transition plan to hydrogen. It made sense to me then...we'll see if it makes sense now.
-

« ok, I'm done now

Here's the breakdown by party:



...what jumps out at me?

53% of the Democrats (and leaners) say they have a positive reaction to socialism. But 95% are positive on small business, 85% on free enterprise, 82% on entrepeneurs, and 53% on capitalism. Notice a contradiction??

Let's look at the breakdown by ideology:



Socialism is positively viewed by 20% / 39% / 61% (conservatives/moderates/liberals). But...

Free enterprise is liked by 89% / 82% / 87%.

Capitalism 68% / 52% / 60% - more liberals like capitalism than moderates!!

Interestingly, conservatives/Republicans were more consistent in their answers - 20% liked socialism, and 90% liked free enterprise.

I think that what this says is that the broad base of American voters aren't really all that comfortable with the fine meaning of broad political economy labels; I think the scare factor of labels like 'socialist' and 'capitalist' has been pretty thoroughly devalued and that the American public - correctly - doesn't know where the government's role in the economy ends and business' begins. They are correct because our national leaders don't know either.

And that's not a terrible thing. Governments have been meddling in markets to some extent here since the Founding.

But while it's not terrible that they are confused, I think it's problematic; problematic because I think we need a clear vision of our society, economy, and politics that resonates with the people and helps clarify the turbulent times we're in.

If only we had leaders who were visionaries and great imagemakers...oh, wait...
-

« ok, I'm done now

"...announced the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world's 'third ice cap', and an 'Indian IPCC' to use 'climate science' to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn't do the original research which is one of the weaknesses... they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

"I respect the IPCC but India is a very large country and cannot depend only on [the] IPCC and so we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment (INCCA)," he said."

The IPCC has always been corrupt and dishonest. This is a positive step.

« ok, I'm done now

63% believe Obama is a socialist.

39% believe he should be impeached.

23% believe their state should secede.

77% are opposed to gay marriage.

77% believe that Genesis should be taught in the public schools.

76% believe abortion is murder...let's stop on this one, you get the point.

Now there's not a lot of background about the mechanics of the poll (i.e. where did the 2,000 self-identified Republicans come from - the Wesboro Baptist Church mailing list, perhaps?), but the numbers pretty much ring completely false to me, based on anecdote (my own experience with Republicans) and data...

...let's go to the June 2009 CBS News poll, which shows that 40% of Republicans (self-identified, I'd assume) think Roe v Wade is a "good thing."

...the much-derided Gallup poll on abortion this year showed that 23% of "Republicans and Republican leaners" were pro-choice. I'm not sure how you mathematically get from 7% to 23% by blending "republicans and leaners except by assuming "real republicans" are at 7% and "leaners" are at 75% ... plausible? You be the judge.

I'd love to have been polled on this and see what the mechanics of the poll sounded like. But right now, I don't think I'd take it terribly seriously. I can't wait to see the book.

Update: Research2000 has a lot of marcomm on its site about how accurate it is, but the only 3rd party reference I could find (in a very fast Google session that included a fast look at the Wayback machine) was this:

Exclusive BMG/Research 2000 poll: Coakley leads 49-41 by: David
Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 11:48:08 AM EST

(Bumped, because we shelled out BMG's hard-earned money for this. -- Bob - promoted by Charley on the MTA)

The results are in from BMG's exclusive statewide poll in next week's special Senate election. Research 2000 interviewed 500 likely voters on Tuesday and Wednesday (and we do mean "interviewed" -- Research 2000 does live interviews, unlike robo-pollsters Rasmussen and PPP). That means that our poll is the first (and so far only) one taken entirely after Monday's final televised debate. Here's what they came up with (margin of error is +/- 4%).

QUESTION: If the 2010 special election for U.S. Senate were held today, would you vote for Martha Coakley, the Democrat, Scott Brown, the Republican, or Joseph Kennedy, the Libertarian candidate?

	ALL	DEM	REP	IND
Martha Coakley	49%	82%	7%	36%
Scott Brown	41%	12%	85%	49%
Joseph Kennedy	5%	1%	2%	11%
Undecided	5%	5%	6%	4%

I wonder how these guys do on Intrade?
-

« ok, I'm done now

I found out about the show through Baba Tim over at Free Range International - a site you should be reading if you aren't already.

His critical commentary on one key incident in the show - where one of the team fired on an advancing truck - seems tactically pretty darn sound to me, and strategically, his criticism couldn't be more spot on:

When you live behind walls everything on the other side of those walls is a threat. When you isolate your forces from the population you are supposed to "protect," then your forces have no ability to distinguish friend from foe, threat from normal routine, the good from the bad. Gen McChrystal can gob on all he wants about the importance of "COIN" and getting to know the people blah blah blah ... it doesn't matter because he sets the operational rules here, and under his rules no conventional American troops can leave a FOB unless they have at least four MRAPS and 16 riflemen. How are you supposed to "protect the people" if you can only roll around in large road-bound convoys? How can you "protect the people," if every night all your people have to be back on the big box FOB's eating ice cream and pecan pie?

These SF guys are supposed to be the ones who know how to operate outside the big bases with the local population, but did you notice where they live? On a big box FOB, isolated and removed from their Afghan charges which is obvious, because none of them spoke a word of Dari or Pashto. My children can get through formal greetings in both Pashto or Dari and they were here just a few months - it is just not that hard to learn these things when you live in the local environment. Those SF teams should be out here free ranging with guys like Bot, Mullah John, Panjiwai Tim and myself. They are good troops being poorly served by commanders who keep them isolated and removed from the people they are supposed to be protecting. They will never be able to gain the situational awareness required to do real COIN if they remain confined to the Big Box FOBs. That is the real story and as usual the MSM missed it.

-

« ok, I'm done now

We are forgetting something important about the ascendancy of COIN. It was not accepted by a reluctant Pentagon and the Bush administration because COIN is a very effective operational tool in the right strategic context - although that is certainly true. Nor was it because the advocates of COIN were brilliant policy architects and advocates - though most of them are. COIN became the order of the day for three reasons:

1) The "Big Army, fire the artillery, fly B-52's and Search & Destroy=counterinsurgency" approach proved to be tactically and strategically bankrupt in Iraq. It failed in Mesopotamia as it failed in the Mekong Delta under Westmoreland - except worse and faster. Period.

2) The loudest other alternative to COIN at the time, the antiwar demand, mostly from Leftwing extremists, of immediately bugging-out of Iraq, damn the consequences, was not politically palatable even for moderately liberal Democrats, to say nothing of Republicans.

3) The 2006 election results were a political earthquake that forced the Bush administration to change policy in Iraq for its' own sheer political survival. COIN was accepted only because it represented a life preserver for the Bush administration.

We have just had another such political earthquake. The administration is now but one more electoral debacle away from having the president be chased in Benny Hill fashion all over the White House lawn by enraged Democratic officeholders scared out of their wits of losing their seats next November.

Republican Scott Brown, the winner in a stunning upset in Massachusetts' special election for Senator, certainly had no intention of undermining President Obama's commitment to Afghanistan. To the contrary, he is for it in a far more muscular manner than was his hapless Democratic opponent. But that's irrelevant. What matters is that in all the recent elections, Democrats have been clobbered by a "Revolt of the Moderates" - socially liberal, fiscally conservative, independent voters who came out in 2008 for Obama and are now shifting radically away from him. For the next year, politicians of both parties will be competing hard for this bloc which means "deficit hawks" will soar higher than defense hawks.

America's nine year drunken sailor spending spree is officially over.

He's making the (very real) point that our strategies have to match our means, and that those means are going to look pretty sketchy for the next few years (sadly for me, who is supposed to be bankrolling my retirement during that term...).

The problem of course can be summed up in three quotes:

"The enemy gets a vote."

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

and my personal (and most generally applicable) favorite:

"You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit."

So what do we do if we're unwilling - or unable - to afford massively time consuming and expensive COIN wars?

Do we hunker down?

Do we follow Hamas rules?

Now - again - I'm not disagreeing with his assessment of the domestic political situation. I think he's dead on that being fiscally prudent is the Golden Ticket to electoral success in the next round - being fiscally prudent plus (depends on your political affiliation) is going to be the stump speech we'll all have to hear for the next two years.

But...we can be as cheap as we want to; the problem is that we still have to figure out how to deal with the ongoing expansion of Islamism while doing so.

(Or not...one of the disconnects among people with varying approaches here will be the question of whether the conflict with Islamists would be a significant one if we simply refused to play. Shockingly, I'm on the side that says that things would just get worse.)

Because creating an internal police state to deal with domestic security won't be a lot cheaper than dealing with the problems outside our borders.

And to me, that's one of the five real alternatives:

1. Hama rules (B-52's all the way, "rubble don't make trouble").
2. Come home and lay down arms, while defending civil rights for everyone.
3. COIN
4. The security state. ("Homeland Security is watching you, buddy, so watch your a**!")
5. Magic underpants gnomes.

I've got to say that ranking these in reverse preference order (for me), it's #4, #2, #1, #3, and maybe, depending on what it is, #5.

So maybe we'd all better get cracking on figuring it out.
-

« ok, I'm done now