nerdgirl

My last vehicle I bought in 1995. A brand new Ford Ranger (2WD), hasn’t been taken in for any failures yet.

I don’t understand your statement … on multiple levels but I'll limit my responses to the Honduran military-backed coup comments. *If* the US had supported the military-backed & executed deposing of a democratically-elected leader during his lawful term without any trial that *would* have been a double standard or “dichotomy.” If we would have turned a metaphorical ‘blind eye’ to the actions of an ally, that would enable criticism of having different standards for our friends than our non-friends. Forcefully removing a democratically-elected leader -- while still in his jammies – and exiling him, during his elected term, to a foreign state is counter to the rule of law. That would be a tacit indication to Iranian leaders that the US has a double standard for our allies as opposed to them. Ignoring or even supporting the military-backed coup in Hondurus would have been on par with soldiers from the US Army breaking into the White House in early 1974, forcing Pres Nixon at gunpoint onto a plane, and dropping him off in Canada without an impeachment hearing. That would have been very wrong. And that would have been a violation of rule of law too. If you want to argue that the US should depose someone based on politics, that is not unprecedented. Not even unprecedented in Central and South America. It is, however, counter to the rule of law. And sets up a legitimate accusation of double standard. By supporting the return of Mr Zelaya to Honduras to be charged and tried (rather than dumped in Costa Rica in his pjs), that undermines powerful Iranian domestic arguments of folks like Ahmadinejad that the US has a double standard of foreign policy. Pragmatically, in the long run, Mr. Zelaya's removal is probably not going to matter much w/r/t Iran, imo. Giving hardliners in Iran extra rhetorical basis for Anti-Americanism, even in the short-term, is not something I support. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting argument. As a skilled litigator, I'm also confident that you could build an argument that the actions made it more difficult because of the unintentional strengthening of Ahmadinejad domestically (Iran domestic politics). Concur. As do a good number of the US foreign policy hardcore realists. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A sentient being with the capacity to do so. I love that response! Seriously. One can argue theologically/philosophically that if an all-knowing God gave us the capacity to do so, that it is entirely reasonable for people to do so. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Replying as if that was a genuine question: International Relations and History, with specialization in American Diplomatic and Military History, U. S. Foreign Policy, and Security Studies. I’ve cited Bacevich a few times. Bacevich, along with COL Gian Gentile, USA and COL Ralph Peters, USA (ret), has emerged as one of the most thoughtful, imo, critics of the shift to COIN-driven military policy for Afghanistan (which I support) and in planning and consolidation/expansion of power in the executive branch. Bacevich, Peters, and Gentile argue for policy with which I regularly do not agree, but they almost always make me think. Perhaps I’m reading your ASCII text connotations incorrectly – therefore I’m asking for clarification – are you mocking him and his title &/or job? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Noyes and Loomis eh? I was more of an Everitt and Altgeld kinda person. Transportation Building, represent!!!!!!!! LOL - twice You guys crack me up. (Does this make us part of a cornfield clique? ) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I agree, and it looks like Obama has no intention of pulling out of Afghanistan. I disagree, but I'm sure you realize that no matter how clueless he may be WRT military strategy, he has put some very knowledgeable and impressive men in charge of the war effort. Aaah. Thanks for the clarification there. When I first read the comment, the only thing that occurred to me was Pres Karzai as “neighborhood organizer” of Kabul (?) … I’ve heard him referred to as the “Mayor of Kabul” … or maybe the new US military commander in if Aghanistan (because of the whole ‘hearts & minds’ COIN focus (?)), which didn’t quite make sense to me either. Maybe President Obama doesn’t have a clue. Or maybe it’s a brilliant strategy he’s playing. Because thus far President Obama has done extraordinarily well in getting what he wants w/r/t major foreign policy goals. We got what we asked for from NATO w/r/t Afghanistan/ISAF. We got Pakistan to start taking seriously the Pakistani Taliban and start acting militarily against them (don’t tell the Pakistani populace that tho’; they’re dealing with their own domestic politics). Just this past week, we got Russia to agree to nuclear arms reductions without our having to agree to any changes in our planned missile defense programs, which President Prime Minister Putin had previously declared was an *absolute* requirement to even start talking about nuclear reductions. Some have even given him some tacit credit for the announcement of the “unilateral” cease-fires between Israel and Hamas, but I think that’s pushing it; if anything that was the change in administrations irrelevant of particular individual executive. There are a lot of things that I haven’t a clue about … it’s been pretty cool and rewarding (both experientially &, less often, monetarily) … the number of times that I’ve asked serious, thoughtful, & occasionally challenging questions around people who had lots of clues and I’ve gotten pulled into things, thereby acquiring “a clue” or two. YMMV. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If you let men who think like that define how you are going to fight, then once again, the terrorists will win. Is that something that you would consider a strategic blindspot of the last 7 years? How do we differentiate between the "truly irreconciables" who believe that and who must be killed, captured, or run out of the country, and the indigenous folks who are caught in the middle who also believe that? The latter category matters, imo, because they are often tacit supporters, if only by their silence, especially in context of [LouDiamond]'s comments in the "Marine Corps Operation in Southern Afghanistan" thread on the importance of establishing trust, if impermanent, and developing relations. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If I understood, you’ve expanded to a third potential category (that Bacevich didn’t even address). One might imagine a spectrum with clear wars of necessity (when an invader is attempting to conquer/take territory physically) at one end. Are “wars of conscience” a subset of “wars of choice” or would they be located btw “wars of necessity” “wars of choice” on a spectrum? I think it does go back to some of what Bacevich suggests w/r/t the importance of having principles that guide those choices. Whatever the principle might be: non-intervention or moral/ethical drivers or something else. /Marg … p.s. “poli-sci 2xx?” is further along in a social science curriculum than I ever got; I was over in the chem & physics labs. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This is a really neat view into 'smell the roses' moments. Thanks for pulling it all together.

What kind of metrics would you propose to begin? Of course, all things are subject to later revision. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's a huge issue today, literally. And has been since the Estonian government, police, banks, airports, and communications systems were shut down in April 2007 by an cyber attack traced to Russia. There's a real-world question of what would happen if a NATO member state invoked Article 5 (an attack on one party is considered an attack on all) in response to a massive cyber attack. How does one premptively intercede on a cyber attack? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hasn't this job usually been called "Secretary of State?" With assistance from the "Secretary of Defense" and the "Joint Chiefs?" I thought that was the job of the Security Adviser. SecState works the diplomacy angle, SecDef works the force angle. And yes, this role was underfilled by the last person. Yes, traditionally the National Security Advisor (e.g., Kissinger, Scowcroft, Brezinski, Powell) and the National Security Council, which does include the SecDef, SecState, Chair of JCS, & DNI; have generated and coordinated US grand strategies. While the lion's share of the work is done by NSC staff, the US National Security Strategy (NSS) is issued by the White House. The last NSS was issued in 2006. The NSC is currently working on a new one. Pres GW Bush issued his first NNS in September 2002. President Clinton's first was issued in July 1994. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Prof Andrew Bacevich (Boston U) has an Op-Ed in today’s LA Times on US involvement in Afghanistan, “Obama’s Strategic Blind Spot.” (Great title, imo, altho’ the LA Times editors probably came up with it not Prof Bacevich.) He mixes in historical references to WWI with his analysis of the Global War on Terror. His core argument is against what he calls “wars of choice” rather than limiting US involvement to “wars of necessity” and outlines four five [apparently I can't count on Wed morning] principles that he asserts should be requirements before engaging in foreign expeditionary warfare. Some excerpts, altho’ I strongly encourage reading the entire Op-Ed – it’s only 824 words long: “The eighth anniversary of 9/11, now fast approaching, invites attention to a similar question: Are there not other alternatives than sending our armies to choke on the dust of Iraq and Afghanistan? “As President Obama shifts the main U.S. military effort from Iraq to Afghanistan, and as his commanders embrace counterinsurgency as the new American way of war, the big questions go not only unanswered but unasked. Does perpetuating the Long War make political or strategic sense? As we prepare to enter that war’s ninth year, are there no alternatives? “The urgent need is for the administration to articulate a concrete set of organizing precepts -- not simply cliches -- to frame basic U.S. policy going forward. “What should those principles be? “First, the Long War may be long, but it should not get any bigger. The regime-change approach -- invade and occupy to transform – hasn’t worked; simply trying harder in some other venue (Somalia? Sudan?) won’t produce different results. In short, no more Iraqs. “Second, forget the Bush Doctrine of preventive war: no more wars of choice; henceforth only wars of necessity. The United States will use force only as a last resort and even then only when genuinely vital interests are at stake. “Third, no more crusades unless the American people buy in; expecting a relative handful of soldiers to carry the load while the rest of the country binges on consumption is unconscionable. At a minimum, the generation that opts for war should pay for it through higher taxes rather than foisting a burden of debt onto their grandchildren. “Fourth, the key to keeping America safe is to defend it, not to project American muscle to obscure places around the world. It may or may not be true that a ‘mighty fortress is our God’; had the United States been a mighty fortress on 9/11, however, the 19 hijackers would have gotten nowhere. “Fifth, by all means let the United States promote the spread of freedom and democracy. Yet we’re more likely to enjoy success by modeling freedom rather than trying to impose it. To provide a suitable model, we’ve considerable work to do here at home. “Now, some may view these principles as inadequate. Fair enough: Come up with something better. The point is that unless we get the fundamentals right -- and we haven’t since the Cold War ended -- the United States may yet share the fate suffered by Churchill’s Britain, reduced from engine to caboose in the course of his own political career. Those are the consequences of strategic drift. “Obama has appointed czars for a host of issues, his administration today employing more czars than have occupied the Kremlin throughout its history. Yet there is no czar for strategy. This most crucial portfolio remains unassigned.” I heartily concur with Prof Bacevich that we have not elaborated a strategy. Broad goals (ends) have been put forth. We’re applying what is fundamentally a military strategy (counterinsurgency/COIN) to the conduct operations. COIN only takes one so far. I also concur with his criticism of “Czar’s” for lots of reasons, fundamentally because they undermine the institutions. I also love Bacevich’s challenge to come up with one’s own fundamentals for constructing strategy. Largely because I’m not sure I agree unilaterally with his principles. Particularly w/r/t differentiating metrics for what is a “war of necessity” versus “wars of choice.” The simplest metric is 'were we attacked'? If one uses that metric, a number of US wars and other military actions would not qualify as "necessity” from Korea to Gulf War I. So I don't think that's an adequate metric. What is? What do you think? Is Prof Bacevich on the right track or not? What does he get wrong and why? What do you think he gets right and why? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. --- -- - -- --- He may have been – again we’re in violent agreement there. He should be prosecuted under fair trial if there was sufficient evidence, which it appears there was. That would be in accordance with rule of law. That's not what happened. That's to what the US and rest of OAS is objecting. In answer to your question, which I’ve already addressed multiple times: otoh, extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is what happened to Mr. Zelaya. A democratically-elected head of state was removed by actions of the military during his lawful term. He was made effectively stateless without trial. You keep bringing up his politics (as viewed through a distant lens): “At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America” as justification for disregarding rule of law. Do you have any evidence of that, i.e., what underlies the US motivation? Or is that your supposition? (As opposed to the *two* different explanations I’ve offered: (1) rule of law, & (2) traditional US real politik of basing foreign policy on US interests, including national security interests.) How do you know that? W/whom are Zelaya’s ties closer, the US or Venezuela? What are the domestic politics of Honduras? Please go back and re-read what I’ve wrote, you’re the only one who has dismissed anything as “gobbledygook.” We’re in violent agreement that Mr. Zelaya’s apparent moves to violate the Honduran Constitution, as we understand them, are not a step that we would like to see. Where we seem to differ is whether rule of law applies to all, regardless of whether one likes (I don’t) who he metaphorically hangs out or whether rule of law should be relegated to secondary consideration if one disagrees with someone’s politics. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Here are some values. It doesn't appear the Dept of Commerce breaks down GDP contribution by county. It does have info on GDP contibution by State and by metropolitan areas. Someone else will have to crunch through the data for analysis. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. Marg, I'm not talking about Zelays's guilt or innocence. I'm talking about American involvement in a convenient fashion where it appears the rule of law has been upheld, in direct contrast to other positions elsewhere in the world. Then either you're seeing something that I'm not, or we have very different views of what rule of law means. Did he have a trial? No. Was he democratically-elected and still within his legal term? Yes. What he may have intended to do beyond that legal term speaks to justification for charges not him being treated outside rule of law and made stateless. I'm tempted to quote you w/r/t having something to say but not appearing to be willing to discuss it when you dismiss issues and actions (or lack thereof) that relate directly to US interests as "gobbledyggok". If US interests aren't germane to foreign policy choices of an administration, what are? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The new politically correct warfare by Barry O. The policy is at least 3 years old, and older, iirc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

At core of the US response is the support of a leftist who is aligned with socialists in South America. Are you really (really?) trying to make the argument that rule of law should only apply to those with whom one agrees politically? And that extrajudicial, i.e., finding of guilt and sentencing (expulsion at gunpoint) by an activist court, is okay if one agree with the politics of those carrying out extrajudicial rulings? We're not in disagreement that it appears that he intended to violate the law; our differences seem to be in how guilt is to be determined and how sentencing is effected. Because that’s what underlying your argument: if one doesn’t like Zelaya's politics (who he associates with and domestic politics), the US should ignore violations of the rule of law in removing a democratically-elected head of state during his lawful term. The strength of rule of law is that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) discriminate based on political agenda – even if I you or I really don’t like that agenda. And that those who are charged with crimes are tried under the rule of law for those crimes … rather than forced to become an effectively stateless person at gunpoint. If Zelaya fled from prosecution, would you support the US offering him sanctuary or support returning to face charges? Does it matter what the political leanings of a lawfully elected democratic leader are? Should it? Maybe you can make a case that it should? Has Zelaya moved to disallow use of San Pedro Sula for US counterterrorism efforts? Is he acting in ways that challenge or undermine US interests? In a Kissinger-esque real politik manner – not necessarily one that I support but one that did drive much of US Central American policy in the 1970s and 1980s – one might be able to justify support of the actions *if* Zelaya had denied US access and *if* the newly elevated President had insured access. Has anything like that happened? What overriding reason do you see justifies going against rule of law? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Glad to help out though - we flying dinosaurs gotta stick together. Well, apparently I've been the dense one on that. Just got the connation of your avatars. That's clever.

Um, SecState Clinton met with Zelaya... And, Honduras is an ally of the United States. Honduras is a key member of the US-led Container Security Initiative (CSI), which was initiated under Pres GW Bush's admin. Honduras has closely cooperated with the US on counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts. A whole number of other bilaterals and multilaterals proposed by the US have been supported by Honduras. Iran, otoh, is not an ally. (Also thought you didn't want US leaders meeting with Iranian leaders?) Regardless of whether I like Zelaya's policies (I don't) or you like them or any of us like him or don't like him, he was/is the democratically-elected head of state who was expelled from his country at gun point. If he is able to return to Honduras, he is likely to face prosecution. He may even *deserve* to face prosecution (sounds like he does from what I’ve read). At this point an activist Supreme Court found him guilty without trial and gave orders to the military to remove him from office and expel him from his nation-state. He has not been found guilty of anything. He may be guilty. Of all my areas of expertise, Honduran constitutional law is not among them. At the core of the US response is support of adherence to basic rule of law. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Great thread idea.

I know this has been discussed before, but could we simply incinerate it in a much larger reactor? In addition to Bill's comments, there is another technically viable option: incinerate nuclear waste in the sun, which is a much larger reactor. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Approximately 1 out 10 lightbulbs in the US is supplied with electricity generated using down-blending fissile material from former Soviet nuclear weapons (highly enriched uranium specifically ... courtesy of Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs). Even if one magically removed requirements for safety/security/reduction of risk, magically had the ‘perfect’ site, or separated out politics, the manufacturing capacity for reactor vessels is inadequate. Japan Steel Works is the only supplier of 600MT castings that are required for reactor vessels. They produce 4-6 per year and aim to increase to 10-12 per year. There’s a line. Japan Steel Works charges to *get* in line; countries/companies are selling their spot in line to high bidders. A couple South Korean firms make smaller ones. The last US manufacturer closed its doors over a decade ago, i.e., we lost that domestic manufacturing capability. In the US, B&W (who manage DOE’s Y-12 as part of consortia) is looking to upscale capability but even the best scenarios would not have the manufacturing capacity for at most 10 reactors in the next 5 years … & that’s a very optimistic scenario. Even though each additional nuclear power plant obviates the need for six coal plants, on average by reasonable estimates, in the long-term nuclear energy will not provide the required energy. Need other increases in efficiency and alternative energy sources (wind, geothermal, hydro) – including fusion – and ultimately – unless the world and the US catastrophically changes energy demands – need solar. Everything else is just re-arranging oil barrels & windmills on OPEC supertankers. And no, we still have very few good ideas on what to do with nuclear waste; Yucca Mountain has a closed sign on it now. Effectively we're ignoring that issue and leaving it for our children, grandchildren, etc. The ultimate solar energy conundrum really isn’t cost of cells or efficiency, imo; it’s the fact that it’s really hard to make money selling sunlight. It's free. It's hard to build a business plan selling something that's free. Once someone figures out a way to make money off of selling sunlight, it will be a gold mine. It’s not a knock on capitalism; it’s tragedy of commons. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Comment overheard w/r/t German ISAF troops: "If the Germans could be any further north, they'd be in Tajikistan." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying