generac viagra

Warning: fileexists() function.file-exists: openbasedir
restriction in effect.
File(/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/plugins/../../../../../../tmp/sessions/sess82388123.txt)
is not within the allowed path(s):
(/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs:/tmp) in
/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-settings.php on line
346

Warning: include(/tmp/sessions/index.php) function.include: failed
to open stream: No such file or directory in
/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/classic/index.php
on line 2

Warning: include() function.include: Failed opening
'/tmp/sessions/index.php' for inclusion (includepath='.:') in
/var/www/vhosts/austinbay.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-content/themes/classic/index.php
on line 2

Austin Bay Blog
===============

9/19/2008
---------

Blog World Convention Panel

Filed under: General — site admin @ 7:52 am

I will be moderating a panel at the Blog World Expo in Las Vegas at
12:15 pm Saturday, September 20th. (Las Vegas Convention Center. Go
here for the conference schedule.)

The panel is titled “The Blogosphere in Transition.”

Panelists include Pam Spaulding (pamspaulding.com), Bridget Magnus
(BridgetMangnus.com), Roger L. Simon (Pajamasmedia.com and
rogerlsimon.com) and Rob Neppell (NZ Bear of truthlaidbear.com)…and
there may be more.

My column this week on “the media’s trillion dollar question” provides
a little background. A version of this column may appear in the Las
Vegas Review-Journal on Sunday.

For example:

The terms “new” and “old” media tend to distort rational
discussion about the change in the way people access information.

Since this is a newspaper column, the odds are good you are
reading it on paper, or on a newspaper’s Website — or perhaps on
one of the Internet’s “news and opinion” sites.

Here’s why I think new and old distort or artificially divide
debate into opposing media camps. There is good, informative
journalism produced with integrity, and there is something far
less — the dreck of spin, gossip and propaganda. There is quality
entertainment, be it high, low or middlin’ brow, and then there is
utter schlock.

New and old media both provide the good, the dreck, the quality
and the schlock.

The key is new technology offering new opportunities for creativity
and communication. The column mentions “convergence media” (like my
ArenaUSA channel and pajamsmedia’s new on-line tv programming) and I’m
sure the panel will address it.

If you’re at the conference, I hope you’ll attend the panel
presentation.

Comments (3)

8/14/2008
---------

Up the Ante Diplomacy: US and Poland go for Euro-Anti-Missile

Filed under: General — site admin @ 3:35 pm

This via AP:

Poland and the United States reached an agreement Thursday to base
American missile interceptors in Poland, the prime minister said,
going ahead with a plan that has angered Russia and threatened to
escalate tensions with the region’s communist-era master.

Speaking in an interview televised on news channel TVN24, Prime
Minister Donald Tusk said the United States had agreed to help
augment Poland’s defenses with Patriot missiles in exchange for
placing 10 missile defense interceptors in the eastern European
country.

“We have crossed the Rubicon,” he said, referring to U.S. consent
to meet Poland’s demands.

Tusk said the agreement was initialed by negotiators late Thursday
in Warsaw and includes a “mutual commitment” between the two
nations — beyond that of NATO — to come to each other’s assistance
in case of danger.

Nice AP lede, great comment by PM Tusk. The Russian invasion of
Georgia made “crossing the Rubicon” very politically palatable. Made
is easy for the US to provide Patriots.

The VOA report says:

Talks on the missile shield foundered last month, when Poland
demanded more security guarantees for the project.

AFP adds:

Washington aims to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland plus a
radar facility in the neighbouring Czech Republic by 2011-2013 to
complete a system already in place in the United States, Greenland
and Britain.

Moscow may well have concluded (two years ago?) that the Euro-ABM
would be deployed, but it has certainly howled and threatened. The
ground-based interceptor ABM is not anti-Russian, it’s a limited
shield (ten interceptors) designed to counter an Iranian ballistic
missile volley (”a shot from an ayatollah direction”). The “Patriot
augmentation” is for Polish airspace defense and including Patriots
had been a Polish demand. The Poles would not accept a Patriot lease
deal. The Patriot has been upgraded over the years. The PAC-3 is a
genuine anti-missile missile. Now, that system can –to a limited
extent– counter shorter-range Russian missiles. The Russians have the
capability of “swamping it” by firing dozens of ballistic and cruise
missiles. Here is Lockheed’s ad for the multi-capable PAC-3.

MarketWatch reports that SS-21s have been used in Georgia. Its source
is an ABM advocacy group. Here’s a quote:

“This outward military aggression with the use of ballistic
missiles from Russia on a former USSR country sends a very serious
message to all former members of the Soviet Block, especially
Poland, who today made an agreement with the United States to host
10 U.S. ground-based missiles that will protect the United States
of America and most of Europe from ballistic missiles. This
agreement will also provide Poland with U.S. Patriot Missile
Defense Batteries that have the capability to defeat and defend
against short range ballistic missiles.

Comments (40)

8/13/2008
---------

UPDATED: Texas Hold’em versus Russian Roulette = The New Eastern
Front? Let’s explore an alternative military option

Filed under: General — site admin @ 4:59 pm

Follow my blog posts and this week’s newspaper column and it’s clear
that I’m looking at the diplomatic mid-term and long-term for
resolution of the Russo-Georgia War.

However, this morning I had “one of those conversations” about US and
Western European military options—in the gym. Hey, these chats are
occurring in defense ministries, in State Departments, in trenches
outside of Tbilisi — the difference is, the conversation in the gym
doesn’t matter while the ones in the ministries and trenches do.

So what military forces could the US send? The gym talk was a serioius
conversation, after a fashion. I’d also had this exchange with a
commenter on a prior post regarding the Russian decision to halt:

Commenter 2: “I believe Russia decided to quit before the counter
stroke could be applied. At least it looks that way if you consider
the terms of the armistice.”

My reply is fairly involved but it included this: “Would the
counter-stroke you forsee involve Georgian allies? Now that follows a
different time line, doesn’t it…?”

Reinforcement is a “counter-stroke” – one with risks.

Moving Georgia’s Iraq force home in US air transports was a reminder
of US strategic reach. That was a military option and it has been
employed. WHo knows? It may have given Moscow some pause. We’ve
already seen at least one quasi-military option employed. Using USAF
cargo planes to bring humanitarian supplies is standard policy – but a
C-17 is a US military plane. That is a message, a limited, careful,
but calculated message, and constitutes a low-risk option that, well,
the order has been given and the transports are flying. The presence
of US military training forces in Georgia is a message — one Russia
chose to ignore. Beefing up the training and support mission is a
military option.

In the gym I produced a scenario that puts two big-time geo-strategic
gamblers in an armed face-off. I dubbed it “Texas Hold’em versus
Russian Roulette.” In succinct terms: the force deployed comprises a
reinforced US airborne brigade plus allied contingents if you can get
them (Polish, Ukrainian, Iraqi, even Chinese?– this is, after all,
fantasy). Base air support in a Black Sea littoral nation, and two
carrier battle groups in the Black Sea itself when (if) Turkey allows
their passage through the Straits. Nail overflight permission – told
you, tricky diplomacy required at all levels.

But — say this in the gym, say it on the radio, say it on the blog– to
make a genuine military statement on the edge of the Russian land mass
requires heavy forces – at least a division that can be supported by
follow-on heavy divisions. All else is a speed bump. Heavy divisions
take time to deploy and move either by land through Europe or by sea.

The downside of any US-led military option is summed in this
pseudo-equation: Texas Hold’em plus Russian Roulette = The New Eastern
Front. Advantage Russian Roulette. You’re on the Bear’s turf.

Thus ended an exercise in political science fiction.

As a retired military friend of mine says, in a Georgia-type scenario
the US can execute a minimal show of force mission (airborne brigade
plus) or launch nuclear strikes. Ouch.

But willing or not, the scenario proceeds. Even though it’s fiction
we’re out of the gym. A military planner is called on the carpet in
the White House and receives a grim howdy from an American president
committed to defending an emerging democracy located in Russia’s
European near-abroad. The president has played global Texas Hold’em
for years. He says: “So. You keep nixing military options. I’m not
satisfied. Give me a mil option that meets my strategic requirements
but adapts to diplomatic initiatives and works within time and
logistical constraints.”

The fictional reply: Insert a Peacekeeping Brigade (PKB). Call it a
Peacekeeping Organization (PKO) if you want to give it an extra
diplomatic smudge.

(Texas Hold’em raises an eyebrow.)

A peacekeeping brigade comprises at least two engineer battalions with
attached military police, medical, Civil Affairs, signal units and
lots of media connectivity. Cameras matter. Add State Department
personnel. Add Special Forces with their linguistic talents and a
light infantry battalion for local security. Embed non-governmental
organizations with the guts to participate and promise support to NGOs
who choose to operate on their own but would accept clean water and
blanets. Why, Mr. President, you can help the human shields. Aren’t
they heading for Georgia to stop a super-power invasion? Tell the
human shields our peacekeeping outfit will give them MREs and bandaids
while they chain themselves to Georgian churches to protect them from
Russian bombs.

(Texas Hold’em grins at this possibility.)

Insert the PKB in a Russo-Georgia type situation and the emerging
democracy gets on-the-ground support. The PKB is not an offensive
military force, but an airborne brigade at the end of a long
logistical tether isn’t either. The PKB serves as a
military-diplomatic “transition signal” – Texas Hold’em and the
emerging democracy get some of the value of a combat speed bump, while
reducing though not eliminating the risks of inserting combat forces.

(Texas Hold’em…the man nods. Says thanks.)

REALITY CHECK: Unfortunately, we don’t have a dedicated peacekeeping
brigade I’ve supported a dedicated peacekeeping organization since the
early 1990s. This blog post from 2006 captures some of that history.
The US Army War College paper I mention (advocating a “PKB”) drew a
note from its grader, a US Navy commander. To paraphrase from memory:
“Your generals won’t let you do it.” That was 1997.

UPDATE: I don’t usually do this but I will this afternoon.
George from Sunnyvale writes via Creators.com (my creators syndicate
box):

“I read your comment about our military options in Georgia on
austinbay.net with great interest. Your post made me think of a
question.
Would it be possible for us to give the Georgian’s cruise missiles
without the Russians deeming it an act of war on our part? And
could cruise missiles close the Roki tunnel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RokiTunnel
Thank you for your reply. Feel free to respond via email or on
your blog.”

Tunnels and roads and railroads aren’t the problem — it’s the
Kremlin’s behavior. A US-supplied cruise missile closing a tunnel
might make for great pix, may make some people feel good (for the
moment), but unless the missile attack is part of a concerted effort
of coordinated and supported actions, it gives Moscow another “cause”
with few consequences. The Kremlin could plow straight through a US
peacekeeping brigade and toss the troops into prisons, but it faces
immense political risks and conseqeunces if it does. For the record, I
don’t think Moscow has won — I think it is in position to get a
victory of a type. Instapundit had a poll asking who won? I voted for
“neither.” We don’t know yet. Moscow doesn’t know yet. Tbilisi doesn’t
know yet. We can speculate. Welcome to freedom of speech. Worth
defending, isn’t it?

Comments (54)

UPDATED: More on the Russo-Georgia Aftermath

Filed under: General — site admin @ 7:36 am

Via StrategyPage. This week’s column.

Also see this StrategyPage update on the GSSOP (Georgia Sustainment
and Stability Operations Program).

UPDATE: Hat tip Instapundit. A comprehensive post from
CharlesCrawford.biz which concludes with this thought:

Does the objective correlation of forces favour those leaders who
in a pre-modern way have a clear sense of what they want - and are
ready to take risks to achieve it? Will think they have the upper
hand against leaders who rely on little more than post-modern
flannel and uneasy hopes?

I’ll pinch this from my column (from the StrategyPage link at the top
of this post):

The Russo-Georgia War classifies as a limited strike sending the
message that Russia intends to frustrate –at least in the short
term — the post-Cold War expansion of Western Europe. Poland and
Romania are in NATO, in part because they both fear an
expansionist Russia, but Russian nationalists see the “West
rolling East” into their sphere of influence.

Securing Russia’s borders and protecting the interests of ethnic
Russians are traditional Russian concerns. Ethnic Russian
communities in Georgia and Moldova’s separatist statelet,
Transdniestr, are Kremlin causes celebre.

Now these concerns and the wounded ethno-nationalist pride that
undergirds them may seem benighted and backward to international
elites who proclaim global citizenship and advocate a diplomacy
based on motivational oratory, but they energize a substantial
number of people in a still quite powerful nation-state.
International leaders must deal with the attitude and its militant
expression. The nation of Georgia definitely must.

These “concerns” and the wounded pride undergirding them: Crawford’s
“pre-modern.” Pre-modern but quite current.

Comments (21)

8/12/2008
---------

More on the dire diplomatic aftermath of Russo-Georgia War

Filed under: General — site admin @ 3:54 pm

As I write this post news reports claim Russian troops have halted
their main attack just short of Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital. Perhaps
Russian memories of the battle for the city of Grozny, Chechnya, play
a role. In late 1994 the Russians attempted to drive Chechen rebels
from Grozny, and failed miserably. The city fight became a brutal war
on the Chechen people instead of a fight with rebels. Georgia lacks
Russia’s vast arsenal of tanks and aircraft. However, Georgian
infantrymen are experienced, well-armed, and motivated, and the
“closed-terrain” of cities gives quality infantry an advantage.

But perhaps not. As I wrote in a previous post, to influence European
political, economic or military action, Russia has three convincing
tools: (1) nuclear weapons; (2) a veto in the UN Security Council; and
(3) abundant natural gas shipped to Europe via pipelines. Russia also
controls a chunk of Georgia proper, as well as South Ossetia and
(probably) Abkhazia– so it isn’t the ghost of Grozny that stops the
tanks, rather, the military has taken what the Kremlin thinks it
needs. The territorial gains are diplomatic chips. Ukraine’s strong
support for Georgia is a huge plus for Georgia.

The coming days will provide more details about the complicated
military situation. In a hot war military halts and initial ceasefires
are iffy. The phrase “the situation remains in flux” describes the
uncertainty and also covers the scramble by commanders to secure a
road junction or a slightly higher ridge. The situations in South
Ossetia and Georgia’s other separatist region, Abkhazia, are also
highly uncertain and as reports of fighting and maneuvering continue
to appear. I just heard that the ceasefire deal will or maybe or could
include a pullback by Russia to “pre-war” lines. Hmmm. We’ll see.

Now a complex and dire diplomatic and political aftermath is upon us.
Transdniestr is simmering –that’s the separatist region of Moldova I
mentioned in the “Kosovo Precedent” post (see above).

Reuters lede:

CHISINAU, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Leaders of Moldova’s separatist
Transdniestria region said on Tuesday they would break off all
contacts with the ex-Soviet state’s central government until it
denounced Georgian “aggression” in South Ossetia.

Transdniestria’s Russian-speaking leaders split from Moldova in
1990 in Soviet times on the grounds that the republic’s
Romanian-speaking majority would join neighbouring Romania.

That never happened — but the two sides fought a brief war in 1992
and a resolution has yet to be found.

See this review of Tom Nichols’ book, Eve of Destruction, and his
“global jungle outcome” where “great powers will increasingly grant to
each other the exceptional right to use violence as they will”–
because of the inadequacy of international institutions. I wonder if
one long-term effects of the Russo-Georgia War will be to re-energize
the Community of Democracies concept.

Given the reports of cyber attacks on Georgian digital systems, (and
here, too,) the international lawyers need to look at what constitutes
an act of war — a subject I address here.

Attack a nation’s highways and railroads, and you’ve attacked
transportation infrastructure. You’ve also committed an obvious,
recognized act of war.

An electronic attack doesn’t leave craters or bleeding human
casualties, at least not in the same overt sense of an assault
with artillery and bombs. However, the economic costs can be much
larger than a classic barrage or bombing campaign.

Of course Georgian airfields and highways were hit by bombs, but the
cyber attacks disrupt communications and economic activity, very much
like cutting a railroad and knocking down the telegraph wires did in
the US Civil War.

Comments (2)

And a nice review from Michael Barone

Filed under: General — site admin @ 3:25 pm

The inimitable Michael Barone reviews the “convergence media”
presentation of my interview with General David Petraeus. I appreciate
the generous words.

Comments (0)

8/10/2008
---------

Two Short Book Reviews: Winkler’s “Nexus”, Nichols “Eve of
Destruction”

Filed under: General — site admin @ 3:29 pm

NOTE: I will eventually turn this post into a column. I have been
intending to review Nichols’ book since March. I got to read Winkler’s
book in galley and got a copy in the mail ten days ago.

Two books published this year admirably reflect history renewed and
history pending, Jonathan Reed Winkler’s Nexus: Strategic
Communications and American Security in World War I (Harvard, 2008)
and Thomas M. Nichols’ Eve of Destruction: The Coming Age of
Preventive War (Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).
Winkler’s book provides a lesson in the evolutionary nature of
technological change. Winkler explores the first global internet – the
international telegraph cable system that began shrinking Planet Earth
at the end of the 19th century.

Winkler illustrates that the “new” is rarely a radical break with the
past. Undersea cables broke the great silence of strategic distance,
establishing the first near-instantaneous global communications
network. The hackers on this internet literally hacked cables.

As the 20th century dawned, Great Britain emerged as the global
information power. “The world’s cable industry was almost entirely in
British hands,” Winkler writes. Britain had the cable-laying ships and
controlled production of gutta-percha, the choice “latex wrap” for
insulating long-distance cable. Britain had a lead in wireless
radio—the next-wave global link. Moreover, Britain had encouraged
“countries to land their cables in Britain and overseas
colonies…ensuring…their communications came under British control in
wartime.”

When World War One broke out the British “hacked” German cables and
immediately tapped both cable and wireless radio traffic (on its
“Marconi wireless” stations). This produced an intelligence coup, and
gave Britain imposing economic and political advantages. US
international traders remained at the mercy of the British cable and
wireless companies. Hence the jacket blurb by Richard Fernandez (The
Belmont Club): “In a landmark book, Winkler shows how most of the
issues of the information economy– and its handmaiden, infromation
security– were thrust up on the US by World War I, when the naiton
found that British domination of the cable infrastructure, combined
with London’s strategic grasp of its possibilities, reduced the US to
a humiliating dependence.”

Everything went through the British “filter.” British cable dominance
echoes current US Internet dominance– at least distantly.

Thomas Nichols teaches at US Naval War College. The Coming Age of
Preventive War is not a Beltway Clerk’s wonk tome about how fine the
world would be if people with multi-syllabic vocabularies and the
right kind of friends were running it. This is a warfighter’s book.

Nichols argues the “previous pillars” of order – tradition,
international law, “concrete deterrence” —can “no longer promise the
protection they once did.” The Westphalian idea of “absolute” state
sovereignty is over (think Kosovo) and all institutions “founded upon
it” (eg, the UN) are “in transition.” The emergence of Al Qaeda-type
terrorists defeats the “logic” of Cold War-type deterrence and weapons
of mass destruction in terrorist arsenals make the risk of a
misjudgment too great. Yes, these ideas have been aired for the better
part of two decades, but Nichols relentless focus on the “burden of
action” and “the consequences of inaction” brings a grim, command
decision frame the discussion, a “grimness” the author acknowledges.

Nichols sees three choices: (1) “continue to pretend the status quo is
viable…” (denial choice) or (2) “great powers will increasingly grant
to each other the exceptional right to use violence as they will”
(“global jungle” choice). The second choice produces a system where
small nations face “a system based on coercion rather than comity.”
Nichols tentative third choice is reforming international
institutions, beginning with the UN. He favors a McCain-type Community
of Democracies, but considers other reforms. For example, membership
in the General Assembly “derives” from simple existence, but Security
Council membership “would be a privilege earned by a state’s behavior,
both internal and external.”

Will it work? I’m not so sure, but Nichols makes the case the age of
preventive war has already begun. “We don’t have to like that fact,”
he writes, “but we do have to deal with it.”

Comments (0)

8/9/2008
--------

UPDATED: Russia’s Invasion of South Ossetia: The Kosovo Precedent In
Play?

Filed under: General — site admin @ 7:51 pm

Consider the looming diplomatic argument. If protecting Kosovar
Albanians elicits a NATO invasion, as it did in 1999, and in the case
of South Ossetia Russian peacekeepers operating under international
aegis were already on the ground and involved in the Georgia-South
Ossetia conflict (which they were), what is the gripe?

After Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, separatism
resulting from international action to protect an ethnic minority has
an imprimatur.
That is one interpretation of Russia’s argument that Kosovo should
never have been allowed to unilaterally separate from Serbia, which it
did earlier this year.
Russia’s invasion of Georgia’s separatist South Ossetia region is
certainly renewed warfare in the near abroad. It is also a violent
reminder of how unsettled Eastern Europe remains in the post-Cold War
era.

For Moscow’s foreign policy purposes, the troubles in Georgia fit “the
Kosovo frame” – a minority group beset by an “ethnic nationalist
authority” attempting to regain control.

I’m pointing this out not because I believe Georgia is Slobodan
Milosevic’s Serbia. It most certainly is not. . Georgia a democratic
state “working its way West” politically and economically. These are
major qualitative differences between contemporary Georgia and Serbia
in 1999.

However, Russian diplomats warned for the last eight years claimed
“the Kosovo precedent” would affect around 200 regions or territories
in nations around the world. That’s a nice round figure and it may in
fact be low.

Moscow’s insisted that Kosovo would establish a “separatist precedent”
for spinning statelets from sovereign nations. Interestingly enough,
both Romania and Greece oppose a “unilateral” Kosovo independence.
Spain, with its Basque separatists, wasn’t enthusiastic.

Securing Russia’s borders and protecting the interests of ethnic
Russians are traditional Russian concerns. Georgia’s ethnic Russian
community and the ethnic Russian community in Moldova’s separatist
stately, Transdniestr, are causes celebre for the Kremlin’s
increasingly muscular regime which is now hell bent on reasserting
Russian power.

I believe Moldova remains the trigger for a new Ice Era in relations
with Russia. I can’t call it a Cold War but Moldova and its troubles
with Transdnisetr, immediately involve NATO. Romania is an active
member of NATO and shares a border with Moldova Moldova is now an
independent nation but was once a Romanian region. In between it was a
Soviet socialist republic. Its current government “looks West” to the
European Union and NATO—in part because it fears renewed Russian
empire building.

Georgia shares a NATO land border — with Turkey. (NOTE: In original
post I had no land border. Writing late at night.) It is an ally of
the US. But in Georgia’s case it if “difficult to get there from
here,” even in the US wanted to respond militarily. (Check the map.)

The Russians also claim Georgian allowed Chechen rebels to use base
camps in Georgian mountains. Since the early 1990s Russia has also
backed ethnic Russians in Georgia’s separatist Abkhazia region. In
late July 2008 Russia pulled about 400 of 2,500 peacekeeping troops
from Abkhazia—but given the war in South Ossetia expect the Russian’s
to reinforce Abkhazia. At the minimum Russian military control of
Abkhazia is a post-conflict bargaining chip
And Russia has beven bigger chips. This is tough for Georgia, but
Russia that expects Europe to accede to Russian political and economic
demands. To influence any European political or military situation,
however, Russia really doesn’t need to send ground troops; it has
three convincing diplomatic tools: (1) nuclear weapons; (2) a veto in
the UN Security Council; and (3) abundant natural gas shipped to
Europe via pipelines.

Moscow’s emerging ultranationalist government may see the invasion of
South Ossetia as a route to recovering international respect, a
renewed “Mother Russia” defending its allies against NATO’s political
designs and, in fact, acting as “a Moscow NATO” when it comes to
addressing wars on its own borders.

UPDATE: See this.

Comments (31)

8/6/2008
--------

Terror Connects to Crime In Iraq: Analysis by General David Petraeus

Filed under: General — site admin @ 9:27 pm

Quick note: TheArenaUSA’s convergence media program featuring the
entire interview with GEN Petraeus went on-line a short time ago. The
response to the various Arena “beta” programs has been gratifying and
thank you– the Korea backgrounder and the Over The Horizon: The
Evolving Food Crisis seem to have been particularly well received.
Thank you. The Petraeus interview is presented as an Arena Report.
There will be more. PajamasMedia has a Deep Background program with
the audio, too.

This particular question (terror and crime in Iraq) and its extensive
answer are an example of the Internet’s real contribution to serious
discussion – space for the expert to elaborate, for concepts to
evolve, for significant facts to receive due emphasis, for the experts
and the audience to explore. And General Petraeus explores many
dimensions of terror and crime, as well as the civilizing force of the
Rule of Law. He acknowledges theory –that’s the scholar– as he speaks
from crucible — the soldier at war.

Even on commercial radio talk programs an advertisement looms– an
eventual, artificial guillotine. Live public radio comes close to
providing elaborative space– sometimes. Of course today we find audio
and video archived on the Internet for re-play and re-evaluation – the
words are no longer lost. The Internet serves as a vast hyper-linked
library where individuals can find what they want when they want it,
then consider it at leisure. Quick Internet transcription services are
already meeting the demand for “print copies” of radio and audio
casts. The era of convergence media is now. The Internet savvy know
this. A friend of mine shot me an email this morning noting a senior
military commander in a major war is giving unfettered access to
emerging media. Yes, that’s true. He was very generous with his time.
I appreciate that. New convergence media technology provides the time
and space for maximizing his generosity.

That’s enough blog chatter. As for this question and its informative
answer: Terrorists and insurgents commit crimes but use those crimes
to further their political (or eschatological) agendas. Terrorists
connect with criminals in various human sewers, which is why
intelligence and police agencies monitor the sewer – watch the
criminals and occasionally you’ll catch a few terrorists, especially
if you can get the criminals to become intel sources. Hammer the
criminal organizations and sometimes you will crimp terrorist
finances. Doesn’t mean you will defeat them; it means you have
“pressurized their environment” in another operational dimension and
over time that will damage them. Counter-terror operations are warfare
that overlap with counter-crime operations. Defeating terrorists
requires developing and implementing highly integrated
political-military-economic plans and actions and pursuing them over a
longer period of time. GEN Petraeus touches on a number of examples in
our discussion. He really “drills down” when I ask him about crime and
the rule of law. From my question: “There’s often a fine law between
smuggling and rebellion.” We see this in Colombia, Kosovo, Macedonia,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, the Philippines, throughout the
Horn of Africa, across Africa’s Grand Sahel (Sudan, Chad, etc), even
in Iran.

FROM INTERVIEW 4 AUGUST 2008 2000 HRS BAGHDAD, 1200 HOURS CDT

AUSTIN BAY: Well, let me move to another line of operation. You
operate both operationally and strategically. You mentioned the
diplomatic line of operation, and Ambassador Crocker. I’d like to
come back and ask you a question about that in a moment. But rule
of law is absolutely vital. And you mentioned gangs. That
associates immediately with crime. And many terror organizations,
rebel groups engage in criminal activities to fund operations.
There’s often a fine line between smuggling and rebellion, and
we’ve seen that in Iraq. We see that, to a degree, in Afghanistan.
How are the Iraqis approaching that component, rule-of-law
component, not just through criminal rule of law but also dealing
with corruption? I realize it’s a big question but it’s one that
you must address every day.

GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, it’s a huge question. There a number
of components to the rule of law. Obviously the police is one
component. In that regard, there’s been good development in the
area of the police, and especially the national police, an
organization that many people, probably rightly so, some fourteen
months ago, might ought to just be disestablished because they had
become part of the sectarian problem instead of part of the
solution.
As you’ll recall, the sectarian violence here was horrific, and it
is very important to remember how bad it was. In the winter of
2006 and into the spring of 2007, there were periods when there
were fifty five dead bodies a night on average, that was the
average in December 2006, turning up just on the streets of
Baghdad, just from sectarian violence, not including other forms
of violence.
When you have such horrific violence day in/day out, fifty five
dead bodies every twenty four hours, the security forces
themselves start to take sides. They have to because their
families are threatened, they are threatened, their leaders are
assassinated, families are kidnapped, ministries are hijacked.
The Ministry of Health became a sectarian killing machine in many
respects. The prime minister — one of the early tasks he asked me
to help with was, of all things, to detain the deputy minister of
health in his government and then the Ministry of Health facility
protection security forces chief.
But, over time, and as the sectarian violence has receded, much
has been possible in terms of reforming these different forces.
Now, in the case of the national police, it took replacement of
every division commander and brigade commander and seventy five
percent of the battalion commanders. But that has been done.
There’s been retraining months long for each unit, and so forth.
So that is moving along reasonably well. There is some progress in
the judicial arena as well. The construction of rule-of-law
complexes, rule-of-law green zones, if you will, secure areas in
which they can conduct the investigations and the trials, has
helped.
But there is a lot of work that needs to be done in that regard.
There’s still considerable intimidation of the judicial
authorities. There have been assassinations and attempted
assassinations of some of them. The militia and special groups
have sought to strike fear in them if they take up those cases.
And this comes back to the mafia-like activities and therefore the
mafia-like actions of some of those elements that threaten
security in Iraq.
We have, in fact, put considerable emphasis on how Al-Qaeda, in
Iraq, generates resources. And they do it, again, like a mafia
does, that we would be familiar with. It’s through extortion of
successful businesses; extortion of money for protection rackets,
or what have you; insisting that a cell phone business, for
example, give them a cut of their profits or they’ll blow the cell
phones down — cell phone towers down; taking a cut out of the
cement business, the real estate business, the financial
businesses, and so forth.
And you see the same on the militia side; although, again, much
reduced now and they don’t control the port of Umm Qasr anymore.
They don’t control various other elements that they did control
until about six to eight months ago.
So progress there. And then beyond that, certainly corruption is a
concern and a problem and one that the Iraqis have very much
recognized and about which they’re very concerned. They’ve
launched an anti-corruption program.
But this is going to be a serious issue. There is considerable
money. There is a very young and still very much developing
government largely led by individuals who — very good people and
good leaders of opposition parties for many years but have not
necessarily exercised strategic leadership in the past and very
much growing into their jobs but with bureaucracies that are still
very much developing as well.
So a lot of work to be done in the entire rule-of-law arena. Huge
challenges to it. And it’s not a country that has had a tradition
of strong-willed law, given the way that everything was, in a
sense, perverted, if you will, by Saddam Hussein, twisted to his
desires and basically responsive to the whims of the moment from
Saddam and his regime.

This post from August 5 provides background on the interview.

For more on crime go here (my Arena Channel) and track through the
interview to this question and answer.

Pajamas has the podcast posted as well. (Again, thank you, Ed
Driscoll.)

Is terror crime or war? This is a different question than the one I
posed to General Petraeus. Obviously, it’s both. And it depends.
Terror is a tactic and criminals use it to “enforce” their will.
Rebels use the tactic. Since it’s both and it depend, terror defies
narrow legal templates. For another dimension –a different dimension,
the US Supreme Court dimension — see the Boumediene v Bush video.

Comments (4)

Turkey’s Constitutional Court Fines AKP

Filed under: General — site admin @ 9:09 pm

I know this post comes a bit late. It’s old news by now: Turkey’s
Constitutional Court did not ban the Justice and Development Party
(AKP), it fined the AKP. The “judicial coup” did not occur. The AKP
was accused of undermining Turkey’s secularist institutions.

While working on an update for StrategyPage I read through a number of
reports on the Court’s decision. This BBC story is a good overall
summary. This Council on Foreign Relations opinion piece has some more
details. This “reflective analysis” by IPS is a good read.

Is this a “slap at the Army” as some Turks have called it? My take:
Not a slap, but certainly not a kowtow. The Council on Foreign
Relations essay quotes its in-house expert, Steven A. Cook, as saying
“Clearly the secularists will be disappointed that the party was not
banned, but they are likely to take some comfort in the fact that the
AKP was warned.”

Many Turks see this decision as another demonstration that Turkey is
ready to join the European Union—a signal that Turkey is a reliable
democracy. Most members of the EU hailed the decision and the EU’s
“enlargement committee” praised it. A slew of secular Turks (not all
Kemalists) aren’t so sure since they see the AKP as a “stealth”
Islamist party. Once again to the BBC, this BBC report from July 30
providing a pithy sketch of the secularists fears.

An indicative quote:

“They are trying to brainwash people,” one young woman shouts at
me. “They are fakes. They are wearing a mask to hide what they
really are.”

And Turkey’s government, according to this woman, is really a
group of Islamic fundamentalists bent on imposing their religious
practices on the whole population.

The woman is probably ticked about the AKP’s insistence on passing
hijab legislation (permitting headscarves in public universities).
That was the “tipping point” political move that pushed the
prosecutor’s case against the AKP forward in the Constitutional Court.
(The CFR story touches on this.)

Still, the AKP is a popular party, has broad support, and is the duly
elected government. BUt the IPS article (linked above) notes:

The message is that a party that gets 47 percent of the vote
cannot do whatever it wants, and broader consensus is needed for
major decisions, with the active involvement of opposition as well
as civil society.

The AKP is, of course, the party receiving 47 percent of the votes.

In the big picture this is another battle in the “battle for Turkey’s
soul.” That’s a useful phrase I first encountered in the 1980s and Jim
Dunnigan and I have used on StrategyPage and — for that matter– it
will appear again in the next edition of A Quick and Dirty Guide to
War (to appear in October, courtesy Paladin Press). The AKP could be
the example many Middle Easterns Muslims been looking for — a
genuinely moderate and reformed Muslim party. Secular Turks fear it is
“an ayatollah in a business suit.”

Comments (0)

8/5/2008
--------

UPDATE 2: An Interview With General David Petraeus

Filed under: General — site admin @ 8:35 pm

I do not think there is any question that at this moment in time
General David Petraeus is one of America’s most widely respected
leaders –in or out of uniform.

I had the privilege of speaking with the soldier-scholar at length
this past Monday, August 4. Both my ArenaUSA channel and PajamasMedia
will be running programs with the complete interviews. TheArenaUSA
will be a convergence media program (audio-video-print) that will
feature hyperlinked notes as well as a short video introduction — and
of course other related programming, like the Strategic Overwatch
video. (Registration is recommended but no longer required — so you
can go straight to the video.) UPDATE: PajamasMedia has the interview
as a “Deep Background” podcast.

If there is a theme threading the interview it is “achieving strategic
goals in Iraq.” Petraeus gives both strategic and operational-level
descriptions of the process he’s following to achieve near-term and
longer-term goals. He also provides a sketch of several of those
goals.

Pay attention to the questions about “strategic change.” Here is part
of Petraeus’ answer to one of them (pinched from this week’s Creators
Syndicate column) and my quick take on his reply:

“We’ve been at moments of strategic change,” Petraeus replied.
“These are not light switch moments…what you have is more of a
rheostat, many, many rheostat moments where in small areas local
areas districts and eventually provinces there is an ongoing
transition and has been an ongoing transition for the Iraqi forces
to step more into the lead and the coalition forces to step back
and provide enablers.”

Petraeus sketched a conditions-based approach to assessing a war
of increments where victory only emerges over time. A “light
switch” is Hollywood. Because it is complex, dynamic, and
multi-dimensional, “rheostat warfare” escapes television’s
appetite for soundbite analysis. Counter-terror,
counter-insurgency, and for that matter, anti-crime campaigns are
rheostat operations that take time to conduct and judge.

At one point I ask: “Do you have an idea of what victory would be in
Iraq or the Global War on Terror?”

Once more pinching from the column:

Petraeus said the campaign plan had “near term objectives for
summer 2008” and the security objectives have been met. If the
Iraqi government passes “the provincial elections law then it can
be declared that they have met them (plan objectives) in the
political line of operation…” Diplomatic and economic objectives
are also being achieved.

“We have objectives for 2009 and an end state as well,” he said.
He did not elaborate on goals for 2009 but said the end state in
short hand “is country that is at peace with itself and its
neighbors. A government representative of and responsive to its
people. A productive member of the region and the global economy.”

“But again,” he warned, “we have considerable drill downs that
describe the objectives relative to in the security line of
operations, relative the enemy… relative to the Iraqi forces, the
different types that are here.”

He’s saying a smart and resilient enemy “always has a vote.” In Iraq’s
case what Iran does or does not do matters.

If you want to “look forward” with General Petraeus’ interview as a
reference and critical guideline, TheArenaUSA’s Strategic Overwatch
program (an update to the Consequences pilot tv episode) provides a
useful tool for thinking about what the path to achieving these goals
in Iraq will look like over the next 12 to 36 months– that’s what a
scenario ought to do, provide an instructive and creative insight into
a dynamic, changing situation.

Note this exchange regarding the “incremental” nature of the
warfighting process –lifted from Ed Driscoll’s transcript– but how
“the incremental” builds over time to reach goals:

AUSTIN BAY: Gen. David Petraeus, let’s pick up on your rheostat
analogy. You’re giving us a conditions-based approach to assessing
victory in a very intricate, complex and long struggle. Now this
is an incremental victory–one step up; a half-step back. Enemy
action results in a coalition response; coalition actions result
in an enemy response. That’s war among human beings. It strikes me
that some of those conditions include a sovereign Iraq that is
largely responsible for its own internal security, but is also a
United States ally. These are some of the conditions mentioned in
the Update Strategic Overwatch video at the ArenaUSA.com. That
said; if you would, please comment on a sovereign Iraq emerging as
a US ally.

Did you get a chance to look at that video?

GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS: Just briefly, I’m afraid, Austin. But let
me just come back to what you just said because the way you stated
that is exactly right. It is incremental, and it does have fits
and starts. It is this exercise of pushing the stone up a hill, a
Sisyphean endeavor at times where you do make two steps up and one
step back. Sometimes you get one step up and two steps back.
But, overall, over the course of the past year or so, really since
the start of the surge of offenses in particular, that was the
large comprehensive offensive launched in June 2007 when we had
all of the surge brigades on the ground, since that time, there
has been a fairly steady degree of improvement week in/week out,
month in/month out. Certainly, again, there have been flare-ups at
times. The militia counterattacks, when Prime Minister al-Maliki
ordered Iraqi forces and the Basra, were really quite a
substantial — more than a flare-up.
But, over time, those were dealt with, more than dealt with, in
fact, and very severe losses inflicted on the militia.

That’s a perspective on the current “over all.” Where else might these
“increments” lead? For example, the Strategic Overwatch scenario (in
one of the slides) provides a glimpse of what future (and maybe not so
future) Iranian troublemaking might look like:

…more Shia Arab strife occurs in Lebanon (stoked by Iran) with the
goal of distracting Iraqi Shias and/or “radicalizing” Iraqi
foreign policy…

Petraeus spent a great deal of time discussing the Iraqi Army — its
increasing professionalism, its increase in size, and its
modernization. Again, the Strategic Overwatch has a “look forward”:

Iraqi Army continues to re-arm and modernize; Iraq and the U.S.
agree to a “long range cooperation agreement” the Iraqi people see
as advantageous to Iraq…

The Iraqis will have to continue their military modernization and
professionalization process, but they will also expect the US to be a
reliable ally.

I came back to the Iraq “emerging as a US ally” is a victory
condition. In paraphrase, he said: “That is certainly one of the
objectives,” Petraeus said. The US would want an Iraq “taking resolute
action against” Al Qaeda in Iraq, Shia militias, and “special groups”
supported by Iran.

I encourage you to listen to the entire interview. Check out both
on-line presentations –TheArenaUSA convergence media program will also
include selected transcripts of General Petraeus’ comments (and
ultimately include some footnotes). Pajamas will post an entire
transcript later this week. (Thanks to Ed Driscoll.)

Defining victory in war is tough. Achieving victory is, of course, an
even harder proposition.

UPDATE: StrategyPage has the column posted.

UPDATE 2: A real update here, as of 12:33 PM CDT. TheArenaUSA program
will be up later this afternoon PDT.

Comments (1)

If you think we’ll be off oil soon…

Filed under: General — site admin @ 8:04 pm

Read this book:Challenges of the Muslim World, Present, Future, and
Past” (Elsevier, 2008). by William Cooper and Piyu Yue.

The book is not a political polemic — it is penetrating and very
useful scholarship.

I reviewed it last week in my Creator’s Syndicate column (via
StrategyPage).

And pay attention to the graphs and figures.

The authors have the communicator’s knack many statisticians lack
— the ability to produce charts and figures that turn complex data
bits and algorithmic contortions into dynamic pictures that
explain. One such chart explains why gasoline prices in the United
States have climbed roughly 70 percent since Cooper created the
“World Energy Consumption by Economies, 1970-2025″ in 2006.

The chart is “oil agnostic” — it considers energy demands in
quadrillion BTUs. In 1970, the world required 300 quadrillion
BTUs; make it 645 quadrillion for 2025. The percentage consumed by
“mature economies” (like the United States) declines from 65
percent to 42 percent. “Emerging economies” (China) rise from 16
percent to 46 percent. If the numbers boggle, slap your wallet and
examine them again.

Comments (0)

7/14/2008
---------

The Food Crisis: More Over the Horizon

Filed under: General — site admin @ 7:25 pm

If you’ve been checking out the Austin Bay Arena Channel, you know
that we are adding new content and material every week. This week we
are premiering our feature, “Over the Horizon” and my first “OTH”
addresses food politics, the rising cost of food, and the “global food
crisis.”

There are several developing problems relating to food supplies around
the world. Just this past week the United Nations estimated that it
will take 6 billion dollars to feed the starving and famine stricken
in Africa.

This Toronto Star article is a bit windy, but this particular graf
provides a useful sketch:

The crisis is the result of a complex set of interrelated factors,
including rising oil prices which have driven up fertilizer and
transport costs, speculation in commodity markets, dwindling
government-held reserves of food stocks to buffer shocks, and the
shift of food crops into biofuel production…

This isn’t very different from what I wrote in a column two months
ago, one entitled “The Maze Behind Maize”:

The pun is more accurate than the accusation: A maze of
interrelated factors affect the price of maize and most other
foodstuffs. The growing economies of India and China require
energy, and demand from these two Asian giants as well as
sustained demand from other advanced economies has spurred a
long-term rise in oil prices. Higher oil prices bump food prices;
it takes energy to raise and transport food.

Arena’s “Over The Horizon” takes the column into the realm of
convergence media. “OTH: The Evolving Food Crisis” addresses the
“cascading effects” and how the food crisis threatens vulnerable
people who already live on the edge of malnutrition if not outright
starvation. Watch it and let me know what you think of the production.
You can preview the teaser here:

Login to my Arena Channel and view the full convergence media program.

Comments (1)

7/11/2008
---------

Logistics Contra Obama

Filed under: General — site admin @ 7:53 am

Martha Raddatz of ABC News reports that US commanders in Iraq believe
US troops should remain to insure security.

Key quote:

We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is
the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible
for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who
briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.

“We still have a ways to go. Number one, we’re working on security
and it’s very encouraging, that’s true, but what we’re really
trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So,
I think my first response to that would be let’s look at the
conditions.

“Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for
withdrawal, it’s got to be conditions-based, with the starting
point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today,
and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still
have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that
question,” Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an
order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.

When it comes to defense, security, and military issues, Raddatz is by
far ABC News’ most knowledgeable reporter.

But even a candidate able to create an Oz of words cannot finesse the
logistical reality.

From the Raddatz’ “logistics” section:Success on the battlefield is
not the only complication with Obama’s plan.

Physically removing the combat brigades within that kind of time
frame would be difficult, as well.

The military has been redeploying troops for years, and Maj. Gen.
Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as
we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, “We have the capacity to do a
minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month — can we
expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It
depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it’s
going to depend on how fast we bring them out.”

And Raddatz provides an example:

Two combat brigades means up to 1,200 humvees in addition to
thousands of other pieces of equipment, like trucks, fuelers,
tankers and helicopters.

And 90 percent of the equipment would have to be moved by ground
through the Iraqi war zone, to the port in Kuwait, where it must
all be cleaned and inspected and prepared for shipment. This is a
place with frequent dust storms, limited port facilities and
limited numbers of wash racks.

Trucks. Ships. Planes. Moving people and things. Why, geography– and
we’re not talking a mind glitch like 57 states. This is about a basic
understanding of material reality, not political poetry. Obama may
move hearts with a well-turned phrase, and get Chris Matthews knees to
tingle, but how good is he at scheduling convoys? The image the hard
left has of a US withdrawal is a helicopter fetching fleeing staff
from the top of the Saigon, Vietnam embassy. That’s the liturgical
icon of the “withdraw now” crowd. Of course I think Obama will
“refine” his Iraqi policy so that it becomes something very much
like–well, like Bush’s.

We’ve an emerging success in Iraq –the Strategic Overwatch scenario in
this post provides an analytic a projection. This success has been
building for four years and unfortunately it will take a decade for
politicized passions to cool before the sober reassessment occurs.
Then we’ll be bombarded with theses and books and a few mea culpas
about the trail of successes evident amid the failures, the dead, the
bombs, the terror. In war the enemy gets a vote. The good guys also
get a vote. Over time the votes mount up, the destruction mounts, but
so does the construction. In Iraq the construction by the Iraqi people
and the coalition is mounting. In Iraq the enemy –Al Qaeda, the
Saddamists, Shia gangsters– had the tactically “easy” route:
destruction and chaos designed to obtain psychologically damaging
headlines and spread fear and doubt. The Iraqi people and the
coalition had to construct as well as fight. That’s tough tactically
and operationally but strategically wise.

cialis generic impotence kamagra viagra viagra Buy Penis Growth Oil
Online
viagra freesample offer
buy cheap viagra Buy Soma Online
generac viagra
canadian online pharmacy viagra Buy Viagra Soft Tabs Online
pfizer viagra and its cautions
viagra definition Buy Viagra Professional Online
mexican pharmacy and viagra
low cost generic viagra Buy Female Viagra Online
prescription free viagra
viagra without presciption online Buy Cialis Soft Tabs Online
viagra and cirrhosis
order viagra cheap Buy Viagra Online
viagra florida delivery
your source for phentermine adipex viagra Buy Penis Growth Pills
Online
7 xenical viagra zyban proscar
thailand viagra Buy Tramadol Online
viagra hypertension nitroglycerin
buy taladafil viagra Buy Phentermine Online
best price on viagra
viagra alternative research Buy Penis Extender Online
cheap herbal viagra
buy viagra cheapest best prices online Buy Levitra Online
uk biggest viagra gang
viagra best prices Buy Cialis Online
prisoners and viagra
cialis viagra differences Buy Levitra Professional Online
viagra and half-life
viagra costs australia Buy Cialis Professional Online
viagra starter
buy in uk viagra Buy Penis Growth Pack Online
wall street journal viagra
viagra lima Buy VPXL Online
best price generic viagra

Comments (8)

7/10/2008
---------

Mugabe Tightens The Screws

Filed under: General — site admin @ 8:03 am

Bloomberg reports on the Zimbabwean dictators upcoming moves on
Parliament.

This claim by the Zimbabwe Solidarity Forum (ZSF) (via Monsters and
Critics) is interesting.

The ZSF’s claim:

The Zimbabwean military, and not President Robert Mugabe, is now
running the troubled country, the South Africa-based Zimbabwe
Solidarity Forum (ZSF) said Thursday.

ZSF spokesman Sipho Theys told a news conference in Johannesburg
that a military junta had taken over the Zimbabwe and militias
were controlling parts of the country.

‘Rural bases of soldiers are living off rural communities and
humanitarian aid,’ the South Africa Press Association (Sapa)
quoted Theys as saying.

Mugabe was reelected unopposed in a June 27 one-candidate
presidential run-off election which African observers said was
‘not free, fair or credible.’

Mugabe has control over the militias and at least a “working
relationship” with the military. Remember, he has tried to shield his
supporters (including key military units) from the savaging effects of
Zimbabwe’s failed economy. It’s an old game. Saddam showered the Iraqi
Republican Guard with economic goodies.

Comments (0)

7/9/2008
--------

An Al Qaeda Attack In Turkey?

Filed under: General — site admin @ 3:02 pm

The US won’t rule out the possibility.

Reuters:

The United States on Wednesday condemned the attack on its
consulate in Istanbul and a State Department spokesman said he
could neither confirm nor rule out al Qaeda involvement.

The Houston Chronicle reported:

Suspected al-Qaida militants armed with pistols and shotguns
attacked a police guard post outside the U.S. consulate in
Istanbul today, sparking a gunbattle that left three attackers and
three officers dead.

Here’s the new consulate. I’m guessing the one Ivisited in 1992 has
closed–it was not far from the Pera Palas Hotel as I recall (where
Agatha Christie wrote “Murder on the Orient Express”).

Turkey, however, has many radical factions that use terror, from the
PKK (Kurdish Workers Party) to hard left radicals still mired in the
Cold War to Islamo-fascists. Still, this attack was brazen – a
gunbattle with security guards. With three attackers slain it means we
should learn more in the coming days. The Houston Chronicle report
said that at least two of the attackers had been identified as Turks.
Why would Al Qaeda hit Istanbul? Because they can. Despite Turkey’s
sophisticated counter-terror precautions, Istanbul is a huge, vibrant,
open city. It is also Europe. Al Qaeda-linked terror bombings took
place in Istanbul in 2003 and killed 58 people.

Comments (0)

UPDATED: Hugh Hewitt Program Today: More on Strategic Overwatch

Filed under: General — site admin @ 9:48 am

I will be on Hugh Hewitt’s national radio program today discussing
“Scenario 8,” which is the “Strategic Overwatch” scenario in
ArenaUSA’s “Update” video. (Click “Guest Login” and have immediate
access to the majority of the programs inside.) If the Hugh Hewitt
show is not carried on the radio in your area, you can listen online
at http://krla870.townhall.com/. (At the moment I am scheduled to be
on at 6:20 PM Central Time, 4:20 PM Pacific Time).

Yes, Strategic Overwatch is a limited victory for the coalition
forces– though arguably a huge victory for Iraqis. Radical? I don’t
think so. Progress in Iraq has either been ignored or disparaged
–we’ve suffered from the narrative of doubt. Now, even Obama may be
“refining.” For the record, the UPDATE video was shot in Los Angeles
in mid-May — so it pre-dates the sudden “narrative of optimism.” Note
that the scenario includes several “enemy” contingencies– including
one involving Iran.

The Iraqis are clearly gaining confidence — the Iraqi “demand” that
the US withdraw troops is a statement of political confidence It is
also a a well-hedged statement, since Iraqi National Security Adviser
Mowaffak al-Rubaie that U.S. withdrawal was “conditioned on the
ability of Iraqi forces to provide security…”

Here are three of the elements drawn from the “Scenario 8″ slide in
ArenaUSA’s on-line presentation:

Assumptions: U.S. is in Iraq for the long haul; Iraqi political
progress continues.

Time to Develop: Could emerge by mid-to-late 2009, fully fledged
by 2011.

Related Events: Iraqi Army continues to re-arm and modernize; Iraq
and the U.S. agree to a “long range cooperation agreement” the
Iraqi people see as advantageous to Iraq; the “squeeze” on the PKK
continues; Iraq begins to attract steady and sustained private
investment; members of the Arab League begin forging stronger
political and economic ties with Iraq. (copyright Austin Bay and
TheArenaUSA.com)

Over the past ten weeks I’ve received several comments from the
Arena’s feedback box. ArenaUSA decided to use the “Austin Bay Channel”
as the beta-test. At least three other Arena Academy channels will be
coming on-line during the next month: Annie Jacobsen, Frank Gaffney,
and Dr Robert Mundell (Nobel Prize in Economics 1999).

As for full Arena registration (beyond guest login)– registering gives
viewers full access to all content, early viewing of featured
programs, polls, invitations, updates and the opportunity to help
shape Arena programming.

And I’ll add this thought– if Hugh and I have time I’ll discuss the
new Arena series “Over the Horizon” (OTH).

UPDATE: The AP quotes LTG James Dubik’s congressional testimony:

The general who led efforts to train Iraq’s army and police units
said today that progress is mixed and long-term U.S. help is
needed.

Army Lt. Gen. James Dubik said Iraq’s security forces have grown
from 444,000 to 566,000 since he assumed command of the
Multi-National Security Transition Command in June 2007 and they
are better able to execute operations on their own.

And:

When pressed by panel chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the
general said he does expect Iraqi ground forces to be operating
proficiently by the middle of next year, possibly as early as
April.

Dubik’s testimony is appropriately circumspect. However, his
“possibly” April 2009 date (”middle of next year”) is in line with my
Strategic Overwatch scenario.

Comments (0)

7/7/2008
--------

Extending Freedom of Speech and Winning the War for the Terms of
Modernity

Filed under: General — site admin @ 5:03 pm

Iraq the Model has been in the front lines of free speech in the
Middle East.

See this post for an update on Itaq the Model’s role in supporting
Arabic-language bloggers.

Comments (0)

7/3/2008
--------

Boumediene v. Bush — the video on The Arena

Filed under: General — site admin @ 5:20 pm

The heat generated by this 5-4 Supreme Court decision has not
subsided. Fox News reports there is no “imminent decision” by
President Bush to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. ABC News points out
both Obama and McCain favor closing the prison.

In the first edition of BEYOND THE AGENDA I interview law professors
Lino Graglia (con) and Scott Sullivan (pro) about Boumediene v. Bush —
the case’s background, the Supreme Court decision, and its
implications.

Professor Sullivan addresses the issue of the potential for the
release of classified intelligence material. Graglia tackles the
extension of US civil rights to Osama bin Laden. Watch the slides —
these experts have hyperlinked footnotes. This is genuine “convergence
media” — here and now.

Watch the whole thing.

Beyond The Agenda will be a regular on-line video series. If you’ve
program ideas, please pass them along to The Arena’s program managers.

Comments (0)

UPDATED: The Hard Thing of Democracy –thoughts for the 4th of July

Filed under: General — site admin @ 12:02 pm

The Hard Thing of Democracy

A Vietnam vet friend of mine argues that maintaining a democracy
requires three things: a passion for freedom, tolerance for diversity
and intolerance for threats.

An email from a reader, responding to a Creators Syndicate column on
Iraq’s struggling democracy, suggested I write about the United
States’ own tortuous path — sketching a nation that began with limited
voting rights and confronted powerful factions, ethnic animosities,
urban riot, rural rebellion and destructive civil war. The reader
thought America’s saga might help the public “understand that this
democracy thing is hard.”

Hard indeed. Mull my friend’s threefold guidance, and you’ll find
tricky paradox after paradox entwined within several enigmas.
Balancing tolerance and intolerance is an obvious tension, which
requires reason, experience, maturity and discipline, but the
aspiration for freedom, the drive to obtain it and retain it, also
involves emotional passion and desire.

America itself is a structural paradox. The United States is a
republic — for good reason. America’s founders saw dangers in what
James Madison (Federalist Paper 10) called “pure democracy … a society
consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer
the government in person.” Madison argued this arrangement had “no
cure for the mischiefs of faction,” and weaker parties and “an
obnoxious individual” were vulnerable to “pure” majority rule.

Yet a muscular democratic spirit empowers the Constitution’s opening
phrase, “We the people of the United States.” America is a balancing
act, where democratic practices and values steer the republic.

Democracy and freedom, that passionate objective, are closely linked,
but democracy in practice is an exercise in restrained freedom.
Liberty without responsibility quickly and all too easily degrades to
libertinism, which is why maintaining democracy demands shared
responsibility.

But shared responsibility — what a risky demand. Human beings may
behave nobly and sacrificially; they also behave abysmally and
selfishly. During the Cold War, Jean Francois Revel wrote in “How
Democracies Perish” that “democracy may, after all, turn out to have
been a historical accident. … Democracy is by its very nature turned
inward. Its vocation is the patient and realistic improvement of life
in a community.”

Revel echoed John Adams’ observation of 1814: “Democracy never lasts
long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a
democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Revel saw democratic practice as paradox fraught with social reward
and danger. “Societies of which permanent criticism is an integral
feature are the only livable ones,” he wrote, “but they are also the
most fragile.”

“Permanent criticism” exemplifies tolerance for diversity, though to
my ear Revel’s “criticism” implies respect and regard for the system
itself — a salient difference from 1960s student protestors who damned
the entire American enterprise. But neither criticism nor protest is
the highest form of patriotism, as many of these self-congratulatory
’60s radicals contend. The toughest job in a democracy is that of a
private soldier assaulting an enemy machine gun nest — and that
private’s action is intolerance for threat exemplified.

Revel believed democracies would continue to be threatened “as long as
theirs is not the only system in the world,” and they “must compete
with systems that do not burden themselves with the same obligations.”

What are those obligations? Philosopher Paul Woodruff (who is also the
University of Texas’ Dean of Undergraduate Studies) in his book,
“First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea”, identified “seven
ideas” that a democratic government “tries to express.” They certainly
intersect with Revel’s obligations. Woodruff listed: freedom from
tyranny; “harmony”; the rule of law; natural equality; citizen wisdom;
“reasoning without knowledge”; and general education.

Harmony entails “wanting together.” Lack of harmony can lead to civil
war. Democratic equality “rests on the idea that the poor should be
equal to the rich … at least for sharing governance.” Woodruff argued
that ancient Athenians taught that “reasoning without knowledge
depends on working out what is most reasonable to believe. What is
most reasonable to believe is the view which best survives adversary
debate.” That suggests permanent criticism and controversy are as
vital to democracy as being prepared to defend it.

“Democracy is hard,” Woodruff wrote, echoing the reader’s letter.
“They did not get it entirely right in Athens 2,500 years ago, and we
do not have it right now, anywhere.”

Perhaps democracy is, like happiness, a pursuit.

This post is taken from this week’s Creators Syndicate column and a
speech I gave July 1. And speaking of permanent criticism and
democratic fragility, ArenaUSA will be posting a pilot versionof
“Beyond the Agenda”– the first program features law professors Lino
Graglia and Scott Sullivan and the subject is Boumediene v. Bush.
Sullivan was involved in Guatanamo Bay litigation. I’ll be posting on
this later.

UPDATE: The Arena has posted the first edition of Beyond The Agenda,
with Boumediene v. Bush as the subject. Click on my Arena page direct
link (top of the blog page)) or here or go here for background.

Comments (0) Newer Posts »

 

Blogroll

ArenaUSA

ArenaUSA-BayPortal

BelmontClub

BlackFive

CreatorsSyndicate

Dallas Internet Marketing Consulting

Democracy Project

Donald Sensing

Ed Driscoll

EpiscopalRelief&Development

Grant Barrett

Instapundit

MensaBarbie

Michael Barone Blog

Michael Yon

Michelle Malkin

Mudville Gazette

Neo-NeoCon

New Criterion

PajamasMedia

PowerLine

RealClearPolitics

ShantiGuy/AmzelMedia

StrategyPage

TalkLeft

Weekly Standard

ZenPundit

Categories:

General

Search:

Archives:

September 2008

August 2008

July 2008

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

December 2007

November 2007

October 2007

September 2007

August 2007

July 2007

June 2007

May 2007

April 2007

March 2007

February 2007

January 2007

December 2006

November 2006

October 2006

September 2006

August 2006

July 2006

June 2006

May 2006

April 2006

March 2006

February 2006

January 2006

December 2005

November 2005

October 2005

September 2005

August 2005

July 2005

June 2005

May 2005

April 2005

March 2005

February 2005

January 2005

Meta:

Log in

RSS

Comments RSS

Valid XHTML

XFN

WP

Powered by WordPress

This blog is protected by Dave's Spam Karma 2: 2700583 Spams eaten and
counting...

than where during be too am because some
has himself an is again surely
yours them themselves go there! maybe your am
whom because should be once he them same after and from he
be other she did should further is what both for so off them their
we above can are are your for while were viagra genaric
been doing of had on itself
munchies generac viagra up before is
during about she his to from hello itself if or what
look are having to them been
below over ours being were generac viagra further other were viagra genaric than hello over
viagra genaric having soft generic viagra do where she me she or
down own whom by viagra genaric at while with my then does see and not other
that were where was as himself on had further it
own visit - then you yours both such be theirs generac viagra ours soft generic viagra did what was into
off see generac viagra what go there! some know has ourselves yourself