nerdgirl

What are your reasons? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have a cite for that? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What do you think? There are strong suggestions that OEF-Afghanistan and NATO ISAF Commander GEN Stanley McChrystal has indicated that he would like, up to, an additional 30-40,000 troops, mostly soldiers and Marines, be deployed to Afghanistan. In August, the Commandant of the Marine Corps stated “There are over 11,000 Marines in Afghanistan, and I think we need more.” For anyone who’s been paying attention to national security, it’s all something of the equivalent of a rhetorical announcement from the “US Dept of Duh.” Within the defense and security community, the debate over the last few years has been counterinsurgency-based approaches versus conventional approaches. The COIN v Conventional debate was personified in the LTC John Nagl, USA (ret) and COL Gian Gentile, USA. With the appointment of GEN Petraeus as head of US CENTCOM, the clear signal, for the time being, is that the COIN side prevailed. (There’s a whole ‘nother side on analysis of the budget priorities … but will leave that for other posts. There’s de jure strategy - what one finds in National Strategy documents, official white papers, NSC products, DoD Directives, QDR, etc.. That strategy and guidance is *supposed* to drive budgets; like many things in the real world, it doesn’t always/often work the way it’s *supposed* to. Therefore one gets de facto [or de numero, as I call it] strategy – what one finds in budget numbers, especially acquisition budgets.) Foreign policy wonks and pundits are now surfacing in more substantive ways … or at last being listened to/given more prominence. (E.g,. in February, Ralph Peters had a USA Today editorial[/url] that argued for limited involvement emphasizing, if anything, counter-terrorism-based approach; no COIN: “Ralph Peters: ignore COIN theory and pull out of Afghanistan.”) The debate now is centering on questions of escalation versus containment. Last week conservative columnist George Will asked “Is it 1966 in Washington? Or 2003, with a Shinseki moment.” Mr Will invoked mid-20th century history citing George Kennan’s 1966 testimony to the Senate foreign Relations Committee on Vietnam: “There is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant or unpromising objectives … Our country should not be asked, and should not ask of itself, to shoulder the main burden of determining the political realities in any other country, and particularly not in one remote from our shores, from our culture and from the experience of our people. This is not only not our business, but I don't think we can do it successfully.” Prof Andrew Bacevich (also a retired Army Colonel) has also reframed the debate along escalation versus containment lines, invoking the Cold War against the Soviets in general as the historical model: “The counterinsurgency campaign proposed in Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's strategic assessment will prolong the war for an additional five or 10 years. The war's most ardent proponents insist that President Obama has no choice: It's either fight on or invite another 9/11. “Fortunately, there is an alternative to a global counterinsurgency campaign. Instead of fighting an endless hot war in a vain effort to eliminate the jihadist threat, the United States should wage a cold war to keep the threat at bay. Such a strategy worked before. It can work again. “Containing the threat posed by jihad should follow a similar strategy. Robust defenses are key -- not mechanized units patrolling the Iron Curtain, but well-funded government agencies securing borders, controlling access to airports and seaports, and ensuring the integrity of electronic networks that have become essential to our way of life. “As during the Cold War, a strategy of containment should include comprehensive export controls and the monitoring of international financial transactions. Without money and access to weapons, the jihadist threat shrinks to insignificance: All that remains is hatred. Ideally, this approach should include strenuous efforts to reduce the West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil, which serves to funnel many billions of dollars into the hands of people who may not wish us well.” One part on which Prof Bacevich's argument is problematic unquestionably is his assertions w/r/t leadership decapitation, i.e., removing or killing the leadership of a terrorist group hastens its end. While ‘common-sense’ or ‘conventional wisdom’ might suggest it to be an effective strategy, the data clearly shows that leadership decapitation is rarely effective in hastening the decline or demise of terrorist groups, especially w/r/t large, older (>10 years) terrorist groups like al Qa’eda. (More here.) Do you see Afghanistan being to Pres Obama what Vietnam was to Pres Kennedy or Pres Johnson? To which historical conflicts do you think the US should be looking for guidance and options? Do you think Afghanistan is a ‘winnable’ conflict? Why or why not? Is ‘winning’ even the best descriptor? Should the US send more troops to Afghanistan? Why or why not? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Oooh, that looks *very* interesting! It’s now on my order list. Thanks for the recommendation. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, it’s likely Dave Grossman’s Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence. And yes, I would be very interested in hearing more on the problems with his argument methodologically or historically that you identified. For those who might be interested in Grossman’s general thesis but not interested enough to read the book (like me), he’s got a number of short articles on his website, e.g., “Trained to Kill: Are We Conditioning Our Children to Commit Murder?” NB: Grossman is possibly better known in Speakers Corner as the popularizer of the sheepdog, wolf, sheep analogy. I have another of his books, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society on my bookshelf, which, along with other books, is in the 'to be read' category. I’ve never met Grossman. Have exchanged emails with him on counter-terrorism stuff. He’s responded promptly and amicably. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Responding genuinely as if there was a question there. For some civil libertarians, it’s a big deal ideologically because of the imposition on civil liberties and what’s seen as a privacy issue. On similar ideological grounds, some civil libertarians would prefer all State and federal laws regarding gun ownership and registration be like those in Georgia, which if I understand correctly are even more liberal than Texas. (If I’m wrong on the latter, I’m confident someone will correct me. ) Now, I recognize that you (literally - ‘you’) may not see that line of thinking or find value in it. I do, in both cases ... as well as others. For some folks who know history, including recent history (perhaps know it too well?), it’s a big deal because such efforts have historically been used to try to limit or completely disenfranchise the rights of some voters. At the same time, if one recognizes that voting fraud does occur and that ideologically (because usually the error bars are pretty small compared to the overall electorate) it potentially undermines our process, what is the best course of action? Would you (general or specific 'you') recommend one stick to one’s ideological ground out of stubbornness (?) or commitment (?) and refuse to compromise? View the world as only having binary options? Or enable mechanisms by which those at risk of disenfranchisement are not, or that risk is lower significantly? I respect those who object to voter ID requirements on civil liberties grounds. At the same time I can hold ideological beliefs in the value of clean voting and recognize the pragmatic reality of some level of voter fraud, so I prefer a pragmatic option that reaches a compromise across multiple issues. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I gave a talk earlier today on Iranian nanotechnology. Words one doesn’t expect to read together in Bonfire, eh? Taking a mental break now til I get to moderate a discussion on transnational private investment in nanotechnology ('Intel to build nanoelectronics research center in Saudi Arabia,' 'Nanotechnology collaboration between Russia and Israel,' etc) in an hour or so. That should be a lot of fun – cuz I’ve got a real mix of, eh, ‘personalities’ who should be ‘dynamic’ (as a polite way to put it .) Luv a good moderating challenge. It’s all work-related … but I think it’s cool! (Further evidence of my apt-selected user name. -[at-myself]) Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Noice :-) Two recent pools that I played in. The one in Siem Reap was salt water ... unexpected ... & kinda neat. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hadn't seen that. Think it's pretty cool!

Not sure if this is part of your thinking ... perhaps I'm just reading into it what I want (in such case, feel free to tell me I'm wrong) ... should one have to have a college degree (& does it matter what type) to expect to be able to reach middle class? Imo, college shouldn't necessarily be requisite. There are a lot of smart & responsible people who don't have degrees. (There are some smart & irresponsible ones on both sides as well.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This is a topic that interests me greatly - personally & professionally. I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops. Think it's a great credit to you that you've recognized the economic advantages and set high goals for your son. That's a part of responsibility, which imo sometimes doesn't get as much attention as it deserves: our behavior (choices) and the messages it sends ... which sounds horribly self-righteous to me as re-read it ... but I'll put it out there. To further your argument from the data-driven side: while there are exceptional exceptions (e.g., rock stars), a 2002 US Dept of Commerce study found that “over an adult's working life, high school graduates can expect, on average, to earn $1.2 million; those with a bachelor's degree, $2.1 million; and people with a master's degree, $2.5 million. Persons with doctoral degrees earn an average of $3.4 million during their working life, while those with professional degrees do best at $4.4 million.” Those are averages. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Rumor is they're all virgins ... or supposed to be. (Not sure if that qualifies as brilliance, PR, or something else.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

On some small scales, but ones that might be seen as signifcant symbolically, this has already happened. People used to be able to go into the Pentagon unescorted. Not all of it. But parts of The Building were accessible to the general public. Public buses & taxis used to run under one of the E-ring sections to an open-air section between corridors. People used to cut through the Capitol Building. One can't do either anymore. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If a Constitution is static (it still means what it has always meant) then the answer is gonna be pretty clear in the vast majority of cases. If, however, the Constitution is truly "living and breathing" and subject to reassessment/reinterpretation depending on the idee du jour then the Constitution provides no problem. What role does precedent play? The problem is that such a concept is susceptible to arbitrary considerations of what is "demonstrated proclivity toward terrorism." Would that mean having a Ron Paul Bumper Sticker? Or own a firearm? Has a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook? Speaks Farsi? Has PTSD? Has been convicted of a violent act? Has been suspected of domestic violence? Etc. Concur. Here is a cop suggesting that no punches be pulled! If you think a person might be a terrorist, but may be an innocent citizen, act now! We can't risk that the person may do something. Ruined lives are okay, because the danger justifies it. The issue is that context has been lost. The country was founded by "revolutionaries." The King always had threats to worry about. The King would take no issue for the protection of his subjects with eliminating threats. Good point. When speaking about successful insurgencies and failed counterinsurgencies I like to invoke reference to what I somewhat cheekishly call the “ALO, the American Liberation Organization” better known as the Revolutionary “Sons of Liberty.” During the American insurgency (aka Revolutionary War), local militias (one might call them local insurgent groups) were very important. They enabled one of the most important colonist victories in the south, i.e., the North Carolina mountaineers (largely of Scot ancestry) who defeated the Tories at Battle of King’s Mountain in 1780. We’re not only a nation of revolutionaries; we’re a nation founded on an insurgency … one that had extraordinarily good strategic communications. What do you propose as a solution? There isn’t an easy one. (There are some dumb ones, e.g., “kill all the terrorists.”) I lean in favor of transparency. Is it possible in today’s media sensationalized and politicized media lens to air a threat/bring sunlight on it without it being over-sensationalized? How do we prioritize what are “real threats” (existential threats) versus what is “hype”? E.g., I think terrorist EMP is the latest over-hyped threat out there; there’s a bunch of other folks (some who are pretty smart), who think it’s the biggest terrorist threat to America. Every couple months I have someone come to me earnestly asserting that we need to regulate nanotechnology. (Who is “we” varies, from US EPA to new international arms control treaty.) A good portion of the time, the basis for their arguments are grey goo, self-assembling nanobots, or molecular manufacturing, a la Michael Crichton's fiction novel Prey. For me, it has a lot to do with acceptable level of risk at a personal level. I acknowledge that I may be willing to accept more risk than others. Beyond that, at a policy level, I think about probability versus consequence. Regardless, lots of meaty stuff that matters about which to think! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What was the specific aspect that was permissible via the USAPATRIOT Act that was not permissible without it in the Zazi case? I honestly don’t know. Can you cite or explain it? Cool! Then it sounds like you and I should be able to talk with each other. What do you think about Zazi’s reported synthetic methodology for TATP? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Neither actually. (Sorry to disappoint. ) The link was sent to me by a former colleague ... altho' his process for finding it might make a good story. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Not to be out-down by the Iran’s “Leisure Suit Larry” Ahmadinejad, Vanity Fair has put together a retrospective of some of the eh, best (?) … worst (?) of Libya’s Momar Qaddafi in “Dictator Chic.” “Since completing his transition from international pariah to statesman, Colonel Muammar Qaddafi—the longest-serving leader in both Africa and the Arab world—has brought color and his own eccentric panache to the drab circuit of international summits and conferences. Drawing upon the influences of Lacroix, Liberace, Phil Spector (for hair), Snoopy, and Idi Amin, Libya’s leader—now in his 60s—is simply the most unabashed dresser on the world stage. We pay homage to a sartorial genius of our time.” I think #10 is my favorite? Of course, they’ve got a long way to go to keep up with Russia’s #1 man of action. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the post. I heard a short retrospective this morning on NPR. Sometimes I agreed with Safire (especially w/r/t his musing on language in the Sunday magazine) and sometimes I disagreed, but he most often made me think. And for that I deeply respected his opinion and tried to understand the process he used to get to his conclusions. RIP Mr. Safire. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Totally agree! Have had mine for almost 2 months, and it is fantastic! One of my cats took to it with no problem; the other was a lil' bit of a challenge. But he figured it out too ... eventually. Thanks to you, and everyone else too, for the recommendations! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

60 Minutes last night. As is often the case, once one of the heavy hitter legit news organizations covers a story, other hop on it. Thanks for the reference. I didn't see that/wasn't home last night. Will see if I can download it. In general, I agree with GEN McChrystal's emphasis on counterinsurgency and population-centric approaches. The call for more trooops is not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. GEN McChrystal is also not the first high-ranking military officer to do so. USMC GEN James Conway back in August said "There are over 11,000 Marines in Afghanistan, and I think we need more." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Pot, meet kettle! Or perhaps pot meet entire set of cookware? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This needs it's own response, imo ... and I genuinely hope that I am just reading it wrong. Did you really mean to state that al Qa'eda's actions [terrorism] "seem generally rational"? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

According to the primary documents you asked for and I provided, those are the goals of al Qaeda. Furthermore, those are goals for which the actions of al Qaeda seem generally rational. No, it appears to be according to two documents that fit what you wanted to see. You can't ignore the rest. [Edit -- that's wrong, actually you or anyone else can. I won't, however.] None of those goals you've indentified include killing 10M people or acquiring nuclear weapons. Um, "freedoms" is your argument (among others). There is an underlying fundamentalist backlash against modernization ... but that is a further discussion. Al Qa'eda targeted buildings that symbolized threats or offenses to the goals of their version of the desired caliphate, the radical Islamist 'Ummah' and threats to their power. Are you suggesting that someone born rich cannot have compassion for those less fortunate? Bin Laden's desire for Sharia suggests that not to be the case. Nope, not all all. Is that another strawman? I'm trying to explain why your interpretations of Qa'eda's goals are not correct. Imposition of Shari'a law would not interfere with UBL's privilege nor is it necessarily evidence of compassion. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have a specific link or news report? The COMISAF's Initial Assessment (aka GEN MCChrysal's report to SecDef) doesn't say anything specific either way ... there are a few places where I could squint and read something into if I really wanted to do so. But I'm generally not inclined to do so. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you mean GEN McChrystal's Assessment (link to 66 page UNCLASS pdf available through that story)? Or something else? GEN David Barno, USA (ret) has argued in favor of UAVs, largely on counter-terrorism grounds. David Kilcullen (former Australian Army & COIN guru) has argued against, largely on counter-insurgency grounds. I can see both sides. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying