nerdgirl

For those who might be curious, earlier this morning VADM Bill Gortney, Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, gave a briefing, “Somali Pirates Briefing,” on the rescue of Maersk - Alabama Captain Richard Phillips, actions being taken w/r/t the detained pirate, and piracy in the Gulf of Aden. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The current $83B he's seeking is his doing. The very procedure he frequently critisized during his campaign. As he should have, but since the war was not properly budgeted in the first place, the only way to support our troops is by supplemental appropriations. The requested supplemental is for the remainder of FY09. The FY09 defense budget was submitted last spring (4Feb08) and the the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 became law in September 2008. (And I don't know the budget with the fidelity to make any speculations on why it is >$83B short.) SecDef Gates has incorporated funds for supporting operations in Iraq (OIF) and Afghanistan (OEF) into the FY10 proposed defense budget, which also included a number of budget items that had previously been funded through supplementals, e.g., increase funding by $200 million for improvements in child care, spousal support, and housing for military members and their families (an increase in base budget funding of $13 billion from last year). So, yes, it can be done. What Congress (HASC, SASC, HAC, SAC – approval & appropriations committees) do is yet to be observed. Such ad hominems weren't useful in 2003 & are not productive now. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Improvement in weapons technology, and change in distribution of ownership are my guesses. In 1960, most people had a WWII era view of firearms. People owned rifles, real weapons were rifles, handguns were less common and generally used by fewer people. Today, there are a lot more handguns out there …. Suspect that most of those empirical observations are correct. They don't explain the trend (i.e., suggest hypothetical causality) in my mind. Perhaps the second point might correlate to changes w/r/t changes in the wider population’s relationship and perceptions of security role of law enforcement and authority in general, i.e., post-early 1970s. What metaphorically struck me in the Pew data was that the trend runs counter to the idea that the larger public has embraced a “nanny-state.” Perhaps, this one issue (banning “possession of handguns by private citizens in the United States”) is anomalous to other issues? Perhaps pre-1960, we had more localized “nanny-relations” (town authorities)? I dunno … just interesting trend to me. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Somali pirates captured earlier this year by the US Navy have been transferred to Kenyan authorities for prosecution, as have Somali pirates captured by Germany and France. Suspect the case will be the same with the one remaining pirate in this case. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This line: "Advice or assistance FREE from our friendly range officers! Keeping quiet and letting you do your own thing may require additional fees!" made me chuckle.

The closest to a universal declaration of human rights that we have is … the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Groups of people came together in the last century and decided what they would be. They are constructed. In March 1989, President Reagan called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “For people of good will around the world, that document is more than just words: It's a global testament of humanity, a standard by which any humble person on Earth can stand in judgment of any government on Earth.” In our (Westphalian) world, nation-states are responsible to protect and guarantee for their citizens the ability to exercise those rights. (That’s my realist take on it.) There’s an underlying concept that I’m going to pull out of your responses … to which I think you’re alluding (I might be wrong) – perceptions of rights change. They evolve. Just 500 years ago, many of our deeply internalized concepts of rights (e.g., private property) and notions of ability to exercise those rights (liberty) were radical ideas! The ability to exercise rights, i.e., liberty, correlates directly to rule of law and is dependent on the strength of civil law enforcement and the strength of the legal system. It’s a good question to think about tho’ … we did here as you might remember.

Liberty is one of the inherent rights of man. If we define/accept rights as inherent either through nature, given by any deity, or conveyed by a monarch (it doesn’t matter for this situation), they are characteristics that other people (in whatever form) cannot remove. One has the same inherent rights whether in Atlanta or Afghanistan. Liberties are the ability to exercise those rights, which includes freedom to exercise those rights. One’s inherent right to autonomy of personhood doesn’t change if one is in Atlanta, Algeria, Afghanistan, or Antarctica. If one tries to exercise that right in Afghanistan or Algeria, particularly as a feisty, educated, single, young woman; my liberty will be significant infringed. The infringement will not be the same on a man. The government one of those guarantee those rights regardless of chromosomes … not so in Afghanistan or Algeria. If one wants to see a counter-example of how lack of government does *not* enable greater exercise of rights, i.e., liberty, one can look to failed states, such as Somalia. Taxes may be very low, as there is no infrastructure, but liberties to exercise rights is also very low. There is no functioning government there; do you want to argue that the rights and liberties there are greater? Some rights may be trumped by other factors as well. In addition to the example Bill cited w/r/t investigatory needs of law enforcement, national security is another example. When one enters The Pentagon, Y-12, CIA headquarters, etc one gives up most all rights to privacy. Some might think that everything should be accessible to everyone; I disagree. Some think everything should be kept secret; I disagree with that too. You are correct that slavery does still exist today. I disagree strongly that the US debt and taxes are the “most notable” or anywhere near the top. Or even the middle for that matter. Sex slavery, as one of the most egregious forms of human trafficking, is rampant in parts of the world and is not unknown in the US. Child slavery – for use as soldiers, domestic servants (that one’s from Virginia), sexual exploitation, and other hideous forms persists. That’s real slavery. Lack of effective rule of law and strong legal systems encourages/supports/allows/permits/tacitly enables that slavery. Many of those occur in the least governed areas of the world … not in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark with high taxes and lots of government. Perhaps there should be a corollary to Godwin’s law, that anytime one invokes slavery, it should be about real slavery rather than as a metaphor to advance one’s ideologies, eh? Marx also talked about ‘wage slavery’ as legalilzed slavery. (Disagree with him too.) Rights & liberties are more than just taxes. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thats like cutting your head off because you have a headache. The reason the Taliban was able to take over Afghanistan and Osama to set up shop there was due in part to their not having an effective government with a real military to speak of. Its not as simple as going in an killing the bad guys and leaving. If that was done, it would leave a vacuum for the next group of shit heads to set up shop and start the same game over again. A legitimate government with a means to defend its people needs to be established before foreign influences can leave entirely, thats not just Afghanistan/Iraq, thats any situation where there are similar circumstances. Leaving prematurely opens doors for other governments and or bad guys to set up shop which leads to regional and sometimes global instability. Aside from the cultural difficulties inherent to Afghanistan(and Iraq) there is the simple fact that the terrain also makes it difficult for a government to establish a lawful governmental presence to be felt from one end to another. Outside of the major cities it is still pretty much the 13th century still. Until there exists a military/police force capable of establishing and upholding the recognized governments authority, there will be a need to help bolster one. Unfortunately, its never as easy to do as it is to explain it. The ANA is on its way but it still needs a lot of work and hands on guidance as they simply do not know how to go about making these changes. It is literally creating a military from scratch with people who are in most cases motivated but not necessarily educated or equipped with the means to do so. Good comments! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you think that rights are the same as liberty? That may be the confusion. How were those unable to exercise that right (lack of liberty) capable of doing so until the law changed? Did they have liberty? Or did the change in law by the government enable the exercise of the inherant right, which had been previously limited. Devil's Advocate: Prior to 1865 individual property rights were protected for those who held one type of property in certain regions of the country, i.e., they could exercise a right & had that liberty. Were the individual liberties of those property holders infringed by the 13th Amendment? (Some of them most certainly thought so.) Government and laws can protect and enable exericse of rights (liberty) or it can infringe. Both. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the link. Wasn't sure to what the OP was referring. Yes, the New World Order is real. (And there will be newer New World Orders to come, e.g., transhumanism.) The biggest shift was the increasing number of democracies throughout the 20th century, the rise of free-market capitalism in the 2nd half, collapse of the Soviet Union, and increase in globalization. (That's probably not Chavez's vision of a New World Order tho.') Semi-tangential: whenever I hear the phrase "New World Order" the first thing that pops into my mind is Ministry's N.W.O. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Government does not provide liberty, they limit it and take it away. How so? Agree that Government cannot take away natural or inherant rights. Folks whose liberties were increased under the 13th Amendment might disagree with you tho' on the ability of a government to enable exercise of those rights, i.e., liberty. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes - Hong Kong under British rule seems to be the best modern example ... and largely remains so under Communist China. The Magna Carta ensured (some) liberties for one part of the elite class in England under the monarchy. I’m not aware of any historical system that provided the ensured the extent of liberties that are commonly associated with modern western democracies/democratic-republics, tho’. Might be, just not aware of it. Altho’ I am skeptical w/r/t historical examples older than 1600s, as most of our current concepts of personal liberty (right to own property, etc) were largely results of the Enlightenment. I would argue that personal liberties – which are not the same as rights: liberty being the ability to exercise rights – are more a function of the rule of law, strength of civil law, and the strength of the legal system. (E.g., Hong Kong under Communist China.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Any speculation on why the support for banning “possession of handguns by private citizens in the United States” was highest during the first survey in 1960 (60%) and overall trend has been downward since? 60% of survey respondents supported a complete ban on possession of private handguns in 1961. That surprised me. I wonder how it tracks with handgun possession. There’s a slight increase in 1981, likely attributable to the attempted assassination of President Reagan, and a much smaller temporary upswing likely attributable to Columbine in 1999. There does not appear to be an upswing in 1964 tho’. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I had dinner a couple nights ago with an Israeli counter-terrorism prosecutor, specifically involved in prosecuting suicide bombing cases. (Pointing that out to indicate (1) he’s not got a domestic politics stake/partisanship, and (2) he’s got credible experience.) One of the topics of conversation was the dismissing of Sen Steven’s conviction. He speculated – and very much owned it as speculation – evidence/indication of prosecutorial conduct would impact other cases in which the defense has asserted that lack of sharing of evidence w/r/t client and specific details of charges. Guantanamo is a military court, currently. As Guantanamo closes and the remaining detainees that have not been cleared for release are tried in a yet-to-determined legal system (to deal with classified information) and in the US criminal system, he speculated on how allegations and potential evidence of prosecutorial misconduct will impact US efforts to try the remaining detainees. His strong assertion – and remember this is someone who has successfully prosecuted attempted suicide bombers and their accomplices – was that detainees should have been held and tried directly through US courts. It was also an edifying perspective for me on how one state, which arguably has to geal with the most continuous threat of terrorism, has used a law enforcement/criminal law model. (We talked about failures of that model as well.) It was fascinating to me to hear the lens through which he immediately viewed the dismissal of Sen Steven’s conviction. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That’s so very cool! I once played dumb – intentionally lost a game of Trivial Pursuit to a guy I really liked. Got a great ride up & down PCH on the back of his motorcycle. Wasn’t much beyond that. Sexiest part of a guy is his mind. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Didn't Iowa do the same? Or the Supreme Court of Iowa did? Before Vermont? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm trying to imagine the scenario in which Taiwan pursues a weapons program. Taiwan had a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s - used the same model of reactor, supplied by Canada , to generate Pu that India used ... and that eventually provided India with the fissile material for the 1974 "Smiling Buddha" test. They were strongly suspected (my hedge is they did) of having a covert uranium enrichment program as well. I can imagine quite a few scenarios although I would not judge any of them more than 10% probable. The highest probability to push ROC to break the IAEA seals on their Pu would involve use of a nuclear device by *any* state (including some of the "stone throwing" scenarios being proposed here) in East or Northeast Asia. Remember Ali Bhutto's "eat grass" apothegm? Parts of the Egyptian government (Muslim Brotherhood reps) have already mimiced/co-opted that (post-2006), and Egypt got 0 votes as well at that NIC/NCPC mtg. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It sort of is … hypocrisy being the inverse state in international affairs to dependability, stability, and trust. Japan’s confidence in the US protection has been among the, if not the, single largest reasons it has not exercised its latent capabilities (i.e., they have plenty of fissile material and are technologically and industrially capable of weaponization). Taiwan, and South Korea rolled-back nascent offensive nuclear weapons programs because of US security guarantees. (ROK originally initiated theirs after the Nixon Doctrine, which weakened security guarantees ... their confidence/trust in us declined). Article 5 of NATO is a security guarantee and is credited (along with the NPT) for having a significant role in avoiding the expected 10 new nuclear weapons states by 1972 that SecDef McNamara predicted in his now-famous declassified 1963 memo to President Kennedy. They have to trust us. Of course they have to trust us. The protection for Japan is a perfect example. I'm going to move around some of your statements to try to respond to the different components. Part of your statements I agree and would defend ... actually have defended/do defend in the real world.... That's why I replied "it sort of is ..." The protection (security guarantees) for Japan, ROK, NATO allies, and to lesser extent ROC, are dependent on trust in our word and documents (legal agreements) we sign. Among those documents are also international legal documents, like the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT), which we ratified therefore making it US law. The NPT has nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) states. DPRK signed, ratified, and became a member as a NNWS. The NPT is a tool that we can use. One tool. Not the only one. To ignore a effective tool like a screwdriver because one thinks a wrench is 'better' is silly, imo. All of that is why diplomacy (another tool, perhaps set of tools in this analogy) and what other nations think (soft power, another set of tools) and strategic communications (another set of tools) are important -- because it makes executing US foreign policy in advancement of US strategic interests easier. It *is* very important to separate the tools (diplomacy, soft power, strategic communications) from the goals - advance of US strategic interests. Defending the NPT (or any tool) just for the sake of the tool is not in US strategic interests either, imo. Ignoring all those tools does not advance strategic interests of the US either, i.e., the “light-switch” approach to foreign policy: the binary proposition that one must either throw “stones” (nukes/troops/bombs) or one must alternatively “rather talk, hold hands, reduce our military, disassemble our defenses, and blame America for all the world's problems.” I don't consider that hypocrisy -- that's preserving & developing capabilities in the national interest. One can make the same argument economically. We don't give away intellectual property. I don't want DPRK, Iran, or a wealth of other nations & non-state actors to have nuclear weapons capabilities. Weapons and technology are another set of tools. They should be the last set of tools used. Especially in consideration of all the successes that diplomacy, security guarantees, and soft power have had with both nuclear roll-back (i.e., Argentina, Brazil, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Libya, Norway, Sweden) and limiting proliferation (e.g., latent states: Japan, ROC, ROK). /Ma Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

By what mechanism/thinking do you see this rocket test pushing it? The October 2006 test/fizzle (it's still debated) or a 2nd more successful test or resumption of program with a 2nd test would seem to be a more likely inducement. Not sure what event would push them over. It may just be a matter of enough time passing that no one alive still have connections to the Hiroshima/Nagasaki. But I think a huge part of their stance has been knowing that they could always change their mind. A perfect having your cake and eating it situation. Another trigger could be the eventual decline of the US from being the single superpower to being one of the elites. At this point, the value of our nuclear umbrella has to shrink a bit, and could lead them to see us not backing them up in a show down. Strongly concur w/r/t latency argument. The argument challenging that is if they are faced with a Melian bargain, they won't have time to respond. I.e., why confidence in US security guarantees are important. Other factors: China still has security guarantee to DPRK (Russia renounced its security guarantee), long-standing nationalist hatred between China & Japan, and horizontal proliferation. If ROC or ROK goes nuclear, I think the barrier to Japan will be lowered. Japan has >150 tons of Pu, of which 41 tons is in MOX (so would take >6months to be useable for weapons). ROK and ROC also have Pu (~44 & 22 tons, respectively) in spent fuel. In July 2006, i.e., before DPRK Oct09 test/fizzle, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and ODNI’s National Counter-Proliferation Center (NCPC) brought together 40 folks to prioritize those countries which are considered to be likely nuclear weapons proliferators in 2016. Not states like DPRK & Iran that have nascent programs/intentions. And not necessarily to identify nation-states that would have acquired nuclear arsenals but to identify states before they have acquired nuclear weapons, when they are in the early and mid stages of thinking about or *deciding* to pursue a nuclear weapons program. It was a mix of intelligence community members, other US government representatives, and non-governmental experts (e.g., academics, think-tanks, SAIC.) At the requested of the NIC and the ODNI/NCPC, the assembled group voted on the three most likely/plausible proliferant countries for 2016, i.e., who would make the decision to pursue nuclear weapons: Candidates/votes Saudi Arabia 20 Turkey 16 Japan 15 ROK 7 Taiwan 3 Ukraine 5 Burma 2 Kazakhstan 1 Venezuela 1 Syria 0 Egypt 0 Brazil 0 If you add up the votes possible (40 x 3 = 120), you can see that a lot folks didn’t vote at all, i.e., they didn’t think any of those states were likely. Predicting proliferation is hard … to put it diplomatically. One can go back to Einstein’s letter (penned by Leo Szilard) to President Roosevelt advocating the US initiate a nuclear physics program and obtain natural uranium (1939) and the Franck Report (spring 1945): there have been attempts to predict proliferation since the before the beginning of the nuclear age. The technological determinists (e.g., SecDef McNamara) prevailed through the 1960s. After that the social science-based theoretical models emerged (Sagan, my guy ; Waltz, your guy - by schoools on sides of the bay not necessarily political theory leanings, etc) offering competing explanations and competing predictions of the likelihood for a state to pursue a nuclear weapons capability. The problem is: “… in distilling useful, future-oriented information from the enormous body of literature on nuclear proliferation that has been produced during the past half century is the extent to which it is largely speculative and contradictory in its insights.” There’s a thinking that says well it’s just too hard of problem. There’s another thinking (e.g., former Ambassador John Bolton) which espouses a just bomb/nuke/invade anyone we suspect policy, and then we’ll figure it/pick up the pieces/pay ($ & other ways) for it out later. And there’s a thinking that goes: hard problem – cool. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One could throw the 1998 TD-1 failure in there and call it 0 for 3 if one were so inclined. A few other comments, not necessarily directed at you Marg... DPRK announced closure areas in both the Sea of Japan and the Pacific Ocean that would have made it very easy for Japan to figure out where the launch was headed if they felt precautions were necessary. A trajectory taking the rocket between the mainland and Sapporo would result in a fairly whack orbit eccentricity for a comm sat. It would also probably be closer than they were willing to aim at Alaska. The US space program was an adaptation of the US ICBM program, not the other way around. It's actually easier that way. If you don't really care what orbit characteristics you achieve or if your satellite burns up in the atmosphere after a month, launching a satellite is a hell of a lot easier than successfully hitting a target (even in nuclear weapon terms) half a world a way. A comm sat would be plenty useful to DPRK to communicate with its aircraft or ships, I wouldn't think it weird that they'd pursue one. That said, I agree this launch was about weapon development and trying to create bargaining chips, not about space. Good comments. I suspect the only folks who think it was about space or communications satellites are the same folks who think the US used biological agents against North Korea during the Korean War, i.e., the low-level DPRK leadership and its population. DPRK excels at brinkmenship. How we -- the US, the world, the members of the 6-party talks, and the UNSC -- respond is the key, imo. China has the most leverage. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, it’s not funny. Nuclear weapons aren’t funny. Ballistic missiles aren't funny (unless it's the Israelis selling to Indians - that was/is funny). As GEN Cartwright noted they failed. Like [champu], GEN Cartwright observed this is the 3rd failure in a row. With zero successes in between. (I called it 0 for 2 to be precise w/r/t TD-2, but I will concede to [champu] and "Hoss" if they want to call it 0 for 3.) They don’t have LRBM. Very little is known about the October 2006 test/fizzle. To jump from unspecified device to weapon capable of delivery by successful long range ballistic missile is like … well, like going from early Leonardo’s parachute designs to a heavily wing-loaded Vengeance. As I noted in my summary of SecDef Gates and GEN Cartwright’s press conference on the fiscal 2010 defense budget yesterday, funding for THAAD is being increased. GEN Cartwright acknowledged -- & frankly kudos to him for honesty -- that most of the capability is under-developed, i.e., the technology is not there … and some would argue never will be w/r/t mid-course intercept. Much of this conversation, & this is directed to more than just you John, has been for me like listening to whuffos talk about skydiving or as you might say anti-gunners talk about assault rifles. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

GEN Cartwright’s comments earlier today w/r/t DPRK failed rocket test: “they failed.” W/r/t proliferation (selling around the world) “Would you buy from some body who failed three times in a row and never been successful.” (~43min in CSPAN video on 2010 Defense budget.) /Marg ...I no idea he would say that when I posted my comments this morning Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

SecDef Gates and Vice Chair JCS GEN James “Hoss” Cartwright, USMC, held a press conference today. Video from CSPAN. Prepared remarks. Winners: -- Increase in Army and Marine ground troops -- Medical funding, including funding for treating Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) from IED -- Spousal support, lodging, and education -- Increased intelligence and reconnaissance support -- UAVs (more Predator drones) -- Training programs & other SOCOM and Special Forces directed programs -- Littoral ships -- 5th Gen tactical fighter – increase F-35 JSFs -- More FA-18s -- Missile Defense THAAD & more R&D at boost-phase intercept (GEN Cartwright acknowledged that the technology isn’t there) -- More emphasis on cyber-security -- Oversight & acquisition corps Losers: -- SAIC and Boeing through the Army’s Future Combat System (which is a specific program not a generalized category). One would have to be in serious denial to have NOT seen this coming regardless of change in administration. The program has been in Nunn-McCurdy Breach (i.e., so far over budget that it triggers Congressional involvement). Originally proposed to be total $92B program; it’s *already* over $200B (& not in procurement/delivery). FCS vehicles are the prime target. “I’m particularly troubled by the terms of the contract…” Yikes Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs, aka robots) part of FCS still moving forward. -- C-17s (no additional ) -- Beltway bandits in general -- VH-71 Presidential helicopter (but increasing training and support for additional helicopter crews in general not just Marine-1) -- AF Search & rescue helicopter (single-service solution) -- Transformationel Satellite Program (T-SAT) -- No increase in ground-based interceptors at FT Greeley, AK -- Airborne laser (he’s proposing slowing it; I think it should have been killed at least 5 years ago!) ABL got a “stay of execution” -- $1.4B cut to >$10B MDA budget -- Boeing proposal for split buy for replacement KC-135 “Stratotankers” refueling tankers. Rough breakdown by back-of-the-envelope calculation: 10% of the budget is for irregular warfare, 40% dual-purpose (including COIN), and 50% is for conventional military operations. A lot of the words SecDef Gates said sound like a shift back to (realistic) threat-based planning rather than the capabilities-based requirements process that has been dominant over the last decade+. I’m concerned w/r/t short-term emphasis creeping into long-term S&T. SecDef Gates recommended significant shift from contractors to actual federal personnel. AP's Anne Gearan asks SecDef Gates is he feels like he’s “walking into a buzzsaw” w/r/t Congress’s likely response to cuts to programs that might go back to their consitutents. Gates very diplomatically responds that he hopes Congress will not be driven by “parochial interests.” At 32min, the WSJ reporter asks the question at the start of this thread. Gates essentially says no. Can’t be “oblivious” to them but national defense priorities are trump any. (Which he’s said before and with more extended discussion of reasoning than at today’s press conference.) HASC Chair Rep Ike Skelton (D-MO) has already responded with a short statement: “Secretary Gates has set out major changes to the defense budget based on changed assumptions about the wars our military must be prepared to fight. This is a good faith effort, and I appreciate the hard work and thoughtful consideration Secretary Gates and his staff put into these proposals. “However, the buck stops with Congress, which has the critical Constitutional responsibility to decide whether to support these proposals. In the weeks ahead, my colleagues and I will carefully consider these proposals and look forward to working with Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen as we prepare the Fiscal Year 2010 defense authorization act.” The Senators for Alabama are holding up the Senate conformation hearing (he’s already passed through SASC) of the President's nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, & Logistics (USD(AT&L)) over the tanker deal. They want it to go to Northrop Grumman/EADS team because under that proposal it would be assembled in Mobile, AL. SecDef Gates let GEN Cartwright lead responses on most of missile defense specifics of problems and changes to missile defense R&D, acquisition, and procurement programs. “Hoss” understands strategy and understands technology /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It sort of is … hypocrisy being the inverse state in international affairs to dependability, stability, and trust. Japan’s confidence in the US protection has been among the, if not the, single largest reasons it has not exercised its latent capabilities (i.e., they have plenty of fissile material and are technologically and industrially capable of weaponization). Taiwan, and South Korea rolled-back nascent offensive nuclear weapons programs because of US security guarantees. (ROK originally initiated theirs after the Nixon Doctrine, which weakened security guarantees ... their confidence/trust in us declined). Article 5 of NATO is a security guarantee and is credited (along with the NPT) for having a significant role in avoiding the expected 10 new nuclear weapons states by 1972 that SecDef McNamara predicted in his now-famous declassified 1963 memo to President Kennedy. They have to trust us. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks! Printed out for reading later. Lots footnotes - yeah! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying