nerdgirl

Thanks for adding to the discussion. Appreciate the perspective. I don't think anyone (?) is under the impression that Mugabe is doing it because he's suddenly appreciated the importance of putting his people's interests forward. If he didn't feel his power was threatened, he wouldn't have done anything, imo, What's different from 1987? First, the economy. Second, pressure from other nearby African states/lack of tacit support by other nearby African states. Third, Mugabe's getting old. Speculate those are the critical factors, especially the first two. Lesser factors: international sanctions and withdrawal of the international community. In the 1987 power-sharing agreement, iirc, Mugabe retained control of domestic security forces (police). [Nigel - do you recall?] I suspect that may be a key piece to limiting Mugabe's reversion to "thuggish" behavior ... all speculate that's one area about which the US State Dept wants to know more, i.e., what are the institutional barriers to limit Mugabe and his proxies' thuggish behavior? And that needs to be tested. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the additional information; I was hoping you would proverbially 'chime into' the thread. With whom is Makoni affiliated? Why do you see him/his influence as hopeful? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I can't help but wonder how the mortgage backed securities were represented when sold to AIG. Were they sold as high risk securities, or were they sold as low risk (i.e. not sub-prime) investments? If the latter is the case, then AIG are essentially victims of fraud. Except they are an INSURANCE company, they should KNOW how to evaluate and mage risk - it's their job and core business. Those are all interesting questions, imo -- how have the incentives and disincentives (1) to risk, (2) to shifting risk, and/or (3) to not revealing/intentionally hiding risk in the mortgage & insurance sector changed? Why? If the information on which an insurance company assesses risk is incomplete or in error how is liability distributed? Who has benefited? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Fabulous - an explanatory counter-hypothesis to test! As all 5 incidents of concern (6 W-80-1 nuclear warheads unsecured and transferred from Minot to Barksdale AFB, the Hill AFB shipment of nuclear-capable ICBM components to Taiwan [instead of helicopter batteries], and the 3 lesser reported incidents) occurred in 2006 or later, your hypothesis first requires us to make an assumption: we have to assume that the subsequent administration's policy choices (2001-2006) had no impact, either positive or negative. (One may challenge how valid that assumption is … but for the moment, let’s use the assumption.) [NB: since there was some confusion during the last discussion thread. Neither the Schlesinger Report, ADM Donald's report, nor I are asserting hyperbole. Not even close. (1) Violations of security protocols and procedures are serious. Post-hoc ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’ about whether something was a ‘serious’ or ‘not serious’ violation of security protocols is irrelevant. (2) The nuclear mission is serious, the potential consequences of security violations and potential consequences of incident pose a higher risk. The potential consequences associated with doing something dumb while working at generic Mega-Mart are not equivalent.] [airdvr]’s hypothesis: the decline in performance excellence in US nuclear mission is due to President Clinton’s administration. To see if your hypothesis has validity, let’s test it against another related organization with a similar mission that was operational under President Clinton’s administration, i.e. the closest parallel. If your hypothesis is valid it should hold for both, right? We should observe similar trends in both, right? If the decline in operational excellence in the USAF’s nuclear mission is attributable to President Clinton’s administration, one should observe a similar pattern in other services, yes? President Clinton was CINC for all services, not just the USAF. The USN has a nuclear mission via the nuclear submarine field as well as submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). The US Navy has had zero nuclear-related accidents. Decline in nuclear weapons stewardship; lack of dedicated authority responsible for the nuclear enterprise, who sets and maintains consistent, rigorous standards of operation; gradual erosion of nuclear standards; nor a lack of effective oversight by leadership has not been observed in the US Navy nuclear field. Those were the verbatim problems noted by SecDef Gates in June w/r/t the Minot & Hill AFB incidents. During the 1990s the USN nuclear field operated under command of the same CINC as the USAF nuclear service elements, which is counter to the hypothesis being tested. GEN Habiger offered other explanatory hypotheses: (1) “TQM” (Total quality management, it’s an early variant of ‘six sigma’) that was introduced in the 1980s; (2) lack of dedicated authority, or as he described a shift to a “huggy culture” (his words) where no one person is responsible w/in *the military.* (Again Habiger emphasized the diffusion of responsibility w/in the USAF and specifically noted that he was *not* talking about 7-yos playing soccer.) (3) The end of the Cold War – the mission shifted. Weight of expertise: 4-star GEN, former head of STRATCOM, and last commander of a unified USAF nuclear mission or skydiver on the internet. But going back to the test case: Does the USN nuclear field use TQM? I don’t know. My imagination is that ADM Rickover would proverbially roll over in his grave at the notion. (Ironically, SecDef Gates appointed a Rickover-trained admiral (ADM Kirkland Donald) to lead the investigation into the Minot and Hill AFB incidents.) ADM Rickover did share at least one behavior with former Sec of the Air Force Mike Wynne – both lobbied Congress interacted directly with Congress in support of funding for their programs. Rickover was notoriously effective at it; it caused Wynne problems. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Last Friday, the DoD released the “Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management. Phase I: The Air Force’s Nuclear Mission” Aka the “Schlesinger Report” The report sited as problematic the ... “Atrophy of the Nuclear Mission" The Task Force found that there has been an unambiguous, dramatic, and unacceptable decline in the Air Force’s commitment to perform the nuclear mission and, until very recently, little has been done to reverse it. [emphasis in original] Senior leadership decisions during the past 15 years have had the cumulative effect of compromising the Air Force’s deterrent capabilities. The change in bomber mission focus away from a cadre of nuclear experienced personnel to conventional-warfare experienced Airmen was accompanied by a gradual decline in nuclear expertise, including in the senior leadership. Stewardship of and focus on the policies, procedures, munitions handling processes, security, and operational exercise of nuclear weapons have been dramatically weakened. The decision that junior officers assigned initially to ICBMs will spend the remainder of their careers in the space mission area devalued the nuclear mission area and had the effect of reducing the depth of Air Force nuclear experience, especially among midcareer and senior officers. As a result, the readiness of forces assigned the nuclear mission has seriously eroded.” And recommended (re-)creation of a Strategic Air Command in which oversight and control of nuclear mission is under one command and that the nuclear mission be the primary focus of that command. “Organization" The Task Force believes that a significant [emphasis in original] organizational change is required to restore the Air Force’s attention to and readiness for the nuclear mission. Today no senior leader in the Air Force “owns” the nuclear mission. The current organization is not properly structured to meet requirements. Assigning a major Air Force command the responsibility for representing all Air Force nuclear-capable forces to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) will create nuclear mission alignment with that globally focused customer. The Task Force believes that the nuclear deterrence mission demands an uncompromising standard of accountability and responsibility and that consolidation of Air Force nuclear forces in a single major command will set the stage for a revitalized nuclear culture. The Task Force therefore recommends that the Air Force redesignate Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) as Air Force Strategic Command (AFSTRAT) and vest it with appropriate authority and accountability. The missions of the new AFSTRAT should be aligned with those of USSTRATCOM." [emphasis in original] SecDef Gates indicated supported of the report’s findings and recommendations. Report chair and former SecDef Schlesinger (under Pres Nixon & Ford) noted the strategic international security importance of nuclear deterrence even in the post-Cold War World: “‘The nuclear deterrent role today is quite different, and it is much more circumscribed than it was in the days of the Cold War. However, it is no less important, despite the fact that the domain of the nuclear mission has shrunk.’ “By treaty, the United States still holds the nuclear umbrella over the NATO countries, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. ‘The confidence that they have in that umbrella will determine whether or not they themselves may seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Some (nations) have expressed increasing misgivings about whether or not they feel comfortable under the umbrella.’ “Part of the Air Force and Defense Department task is to ‘resuscitate their confidence in the credibility of the nuclear umbrella,’ he said.” Largely concur with the recommendations and findings of the 92-page report … which largely resemble observations, conclusions, and recommendations that I cited & suggested earlier. Dismissing nuclear security incidents – even ones that you think aren’t a big deal – is a problem. In Athens in August, Gene Habiger (GEN USAF, ret), the last STRATCOM Commander who *really* was in command of the AF nuclear mission, spoke about the decline in nuclear mission -- specifically the Minot AFB incident and more generally the prominence of the nuclear mission w/in the USAF (or lack thereof). He attributed it to 3 factors. First, he cited the application of the business management methodology “TQM” (Total quality management, it’s an early variant of ‘six sigma’) that was introduced in the 1980s. (When, if ever, did the Naval Nuclear Submariners start using TQM or 6-sigma?) Secondly, he cited a shift to a “huggy culture” (his words) where no one person is responsible w/in *the military.* He emphasized the diffusion of responsibility w/in the Air Force and specifically noted that he was *not* talking about 7-yos playing soccer. Lastly, attributed changes to the end of the Cold War – the mission shifted. Habiger began his career as a 19yo involved in the Nevada tests of the Davy Crocket warheads (smallest US tactical nukes that could be launched from back of a jeep). He also made a provocative (im-ever-ho) comment that he thought that the only thing that could destroy the Republic was someone (e.g., a state or terrorist) coming after us with a nuclear weapon. While Habiger is very involved with the Nuclear Threat Initiative (largely funded by Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, etc), he’s not a total nuclear disarmament advocate by any means. I get the feeling that he’s not in support of *really* deep nuclear reductions (like the US going down to 50-100 nuclear weapons as part of our arsenal vs the estimated 7500 we have now). He did assert that his concern (regarding the only way to destroy the Republic) is reason why nuclear weapons talks and agreements *must* be multilateral not bilateral. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Or if the power-sharing agreement is not undermined due to obsession with a single individual and desire for retribution, Mugabe could be gone in a few years, institutions supported, and overall stability of Zimbabwe improved (still very far from ideal.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How do you propose affecting "Mugabe's removal"? If by direct intervention, do you think that would increase or decrease the instability in Zimbabwe & the neighboring states? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Again, pointing out problems is easy; creating, implementing, and executing effective solutions is much harder. What do you propose doing? I'll even suggest some possible policy options: (1) do nothing, always an option, (2) have AFRICOM lead an invasion of Zimbabwe (pragmatics of troops to be dealt with later). Perhaps a more effective policy in alignment with advancing US strategic interests would look a lot like what the State Dept has been/is doing: keep open lines of communication; publically support the domestic and African-led process; request additional inofrmation on specifics; and involve folks who are knowledgeable (aka experts) w/r/t southern African politics, culture, history, and fluent in languages involved, i.e., use diplomacy. Don't make it about Mugabe. *Could* the US do more? Yes. Is it in the US strategic interest to do a lot more or to interfere in their process at this time? I don't think so. US strategic interests in Africa are much higher in the Maghreb. Reference again: here and here, independent and dependent variables, aka factors, that have been shown to correlate with stability, which show that the most important factors are institutional. VR/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. Interesting observations Beyond politics, folks have started asking questions like "Is the Internet dumbing us down?" - demise of deep, effective, and analytical reporting and rise of 'cult of amateur.' or "Is Google making us stupid?" - over-reliance on disparate, disconnected facts or asserted, dubious claims without context and shortening of already shortened attention spans. Go read a book ... like this one (reviewed by the WSJ). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Estimates vary from the official government value of 22,400% to over 50M%. If Mugabe died tomorrow would all of Zimbabwe's problems be solved? Of course not. That's one of the inherant dangers of focusing on a single individual. Pointing out problems is easy; creating, implementing, and executing effective solutions is much harder. What do you propose doing? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Is there any secondary or tertiary source confirmation of Taheri’s claims? All other internet hits seem to track back/directly reference Taheri. Even before checking at Taheri at SourceWatch, his comment “The UN mandate will be extended in December” sent the credibility filter (to put it diplomatically) toward the red. Last Thursday, Sen Jim Webb did introduce an amendment to Defense Authorization Bill requesting extension of the UN mandate after expires at the end of December. It’s far from guaranteed. The administration did miss the original 31 July deadline to have in place an agreement (a formal Status of Forces Agreement [SOFA], another type of bilateral treaty, or a bilateral executive agency agreement). A draft version of a bilateral executive agreement, (i.e., not a formal treaty, which would be subject to Senate approval) was recently leaked … altho’ most of the web-based interpretations that I have seen range from mildly inaccurate (it’s not a SOFA) to wildly distorted. Btw: Iran does *not* want the UN mandate extended, but the Bush administration *does* want renewal of the UN mandate, e.g., NSA Hadley’s memo calling for Maliki’s government to support extension. Speculate that Taheri’s column has less to do with Sen Obama or even with Iraq but more with Iran: Taheri wants Iran isolated and regime change by any means. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari very recently advocated for trilateral discussions among the US, Iran, and Iraq: “‘We are ready to resume these talks, provided that both sides will agree to that,’ Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said at a weekend security conference in Geneva. “Iranian officials in the Foreign Ministry said Monday they would wait for word from Baghdad before expressing further interest in the talks. “‘If conditions are suitable, the Iraqi government would be delighted to resume these talks,’ Zebari said.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

South Africa's Mbeki has been given a lot of credit (or grief, depending on one's perspective) for brokering the power-sharing agreement. The role or impetus on Mugabe's party to get the international aid organizations and international community to re-engage in Zimbabwe is speculative. Something did get him to agree to the agreement, tho ... Reports do indicate that it was a factor for PM Tsvangirai and the MDC: There is little doubt -- beyond Mugabe and his supporters -- that Tsvangirai won the election. It seems to be a credit to Tsvangirai to compromise for the longterm benefit of his country (i.e., getting Mugabe out of power, albeit slower than most of the world would like.) VR/Marg p.s. during today's State Dept Daily Press Briefing -- (what's on *your* iPod? ) -- Sean McCormack stated that the US has been briefed by representatives of the MDC and supports the agreement. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Apparently I am being slow this evening - please explain how your comments have any relevance to the post to which you responded? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Anyone else following the latest developments in Zimbabwe? President Robert Mugabe's & his ZANU party agreed to a power sharing agreement with new-Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). ZANU retains control of the military (ZDF, ZNA, & AFZ). Surprisingly, to many observers, MDC is supposedly going to control the domestic police forces – most expected Mugabe would not cede control. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yep. I know that they are not USG sponsored. They are read highly, very highly, by members of the military and the DoD. One can also find references in other places: USA Today, AP Newswire, as cited by that mid-Missouri broadcaster, or longer run of the AP story by San Diego Tribune and FoxNews, AFP, Washington Times, Washington Post, NBC, The Australian. Gave you a few more cites. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That is something to consider. The Kurdish north was functioning as a pseudo-state for almost a decade. In 10 or 20 years will succession attempta like Bosnia or Kosovo be observed? Or like Montenegro? I don't know. Failure to do |R| will increase the probability of Iraq becoming a failed state. Reconstruction and support of institutions is more likely to decrease the liklihood of that scenario. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What does one statment have to do with the other? A. The surge did work. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-28-Petraeus_N.htm Decent article. It doesn’t, however, state what you seem to think it does. GEN Petreaus does *not* assert that the surge alone was the sole factor in decreasing violence in Iraq. I can see how if one begins reading with the idea in mind, you can interpret that; however, the article doesn’t says that. And he hasn’t. What factors have contributed to the decrease in violence in Iraq? (1) The Awakening Councils. After the bombing of Sunni mosques (in retaliation for the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque (Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra), the Sunni tribes and insurgent groups (many of whom were members of the former Sunni government & the disbanded Iraqi Army) realized (awakened to the fact) that the Sunnis were not going to return to Hussayn-era minority rule of Iraq. The Awakening Councils manage payment for the … (2) Sons of Iraq paramilitary groups. These are Sunni paramilitary groups paid for by your tax dollars. At ~$300 a month, it’s a lot cheaper than the costs associated with US soldiers and the non-specific costs of US soldiers lives. Many of the same insurgents who previously had been fighting against the multi-national forces have been paid to secure the areas that previously were major ‘hot spots’ like al Anbar province (control of which I noted in a post last week was transferred from MNF to Iraq Army), Baqubah, and Diyala. GEN Petraeus' comments on Sunni Awakening, Sons of Iraq, and increases in capabilities of Iraq security forces from Defenselink.mil here:“‘Since the first Sunni ‘awakening’ in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq’s bounty if they didn’t participate in the political arena.’ [... also realized they would be unlikely to participate in expected economic bounty - nerdgirl] “More than 91,000 Sons of Iraq local security volunteers are under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads, Petraeus said. These [paid] volunteers have helped to reduce violence and contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons caches, he said. The Sons of Iraq have been directly responsible for many lives and vehicles saved, and their value far outweighs the cost of the contracts to pay them, he said. “‘Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we are working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment, and over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs. This process has been slow, but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.’ “For nearly six months, security incidents in Iraq have been at a level not seen since early-to-mid 2005, Petraeus reported. Also, the level of civilian deaths has decreased to a level not seen since the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. Deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence have fallen since September, and the number of high-profile attacks is far below what it was a year ago, the general said. “Iraqi security forces have grown considerably and continued to develop since September, Petraeus said. More than 540,000 people now serve in the Iraqi forces, and half of Iraq’s 18 provinces are under Iraqi provincial control. Additionally, Iraqi’s training base has become more robust and is expected to generate another 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 army and special operations battalions through the rest of 2008, he said. “Coalition officials expect that Iraq will spend more than $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year, he said, allowing the United States to reduce its Iraqi security forces fund for fiscal 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion.” This type of support – direct and cooperative – between the US military and former Iraqi insurgents is part of … (3) Counterinsurgency Theory, aka “COIN”. OIF started as a first attempt to demonstrate the power of defense transformation. SecDef Rumsfeld attempted to apply Transformation Theory to execute OIF … except the force was still (largely) trained/training, equipping, and preparing to fight under the doctrine of more traditional warfighting theory and, more importantly, Iraq was not a peer-competitor. It was not unlike like trying to apply CRW techniques (defense transformation) to a bunch of bigway RW divers (traditional military operations) doing a BASE jump (counterinsurgency operations). Yes, all involve parachutes and folks who have skydiving training, and two involve people jumping out of airplanes, but you are much more likely to be successful on a BASE jump if you use BASE techniques and BASE equipment. (BTW: I'm a proponent of defense transformation.) The Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual (FM 3-24) was overseen by GEN Petraeus (PhD Princeton) and now-retired LTC John Nagl (USA). As part of COIN theory, the importance of changing the views of the insurgents (i.e., pay them to fight someone other than you) and the value of tacit support of the population is paramount. In order to get the tacit support of the population, one has to have basic security in areas of extreme conflict, like Anbar before … (4) “The Surge”. If more members of the best military in the world along with lots of US tax payers dollars are sent to a conflict area, one would quite reasonably expect immediate security to increase. (It may be positive evidence for the aphorism that throwing more money at a problem *does* work, eh?) The introduction of more troops to targeted areas facilitated the immediate securing of those areas to allow stabilization so that transition (e.g.., the handover of Anbar province) could begin. --- -- --- -- --- For those who are advocates of OIF, being cognizant of more than 10-sec partisan political talking points seems to be an example of personal responsibility. Deficiency is an example of lack thereof. This is an example, im-ever-ho, of some in the mainstream commercial media ‘dumbing down’ reporting. The US population is not stupid and can understand these ideas. If the only thing that one hears about is “surge” or “no surge” then it’s hard to fault why those are the only variables one thinks are worthy of consideration. Most of the real world functions on more than a single variable …actually frequently a number of independent and dependent variables. It's also a good example of why what the rest of the world thinks *IS* important: implementing and executing US strategic objectives is a lot easier when they're not shooting at you (aka a 16-word distilled synopsis of COIN theory). VR/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. Ask a lot of very good questions. Folks with whom I speak/communicate (uniformed USG, non-uniformed USG, and retired-USG-now-contractors in the sandbox and back CONUS) are asking a lot of the same questions. As my favorite PhD historian said last week in testimony to HASC: “When I entered office (January 2007), the main concern was to halt and reverse the spiraling violence in order to prevent a strategic calamity for the United States and allow the Iraqis to make progress on the political, economic, and security fronts. Although we all have criticisms of the Iraqi government, there can be no doubt that the situation is much different – and far better – than it was in early 2007. The situation, however, remains fragile. “I worry that the great progress our troops and the Iraqis have made has the potential to over-ride a measure of caution born of uncertainty. Our military commanders do not yet believe our gains are necessarily enduring – and they believe that there are still many challenges and the potential for reversals in the future.” The question that I'm most concerned with is how does one insure that secure and stabilization are maintained, transition continues, and reconstruction is done. We're real good at security, pretty darn good at stability, good at transition ... but our track record for reconstruction is less positive. Not doing |R| is not unlike doing everything right in a skydive until the landing. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Very powerful video. If I go through the archives will I find you critiquing the shameful attacks against Max Cleland, who I’m confident you know lost both legs above the knee and his forearm in combat in Vietnam? If you (general not specific “you”) consider the views of US soldiers & disabled combat veterans more important, are his less important because he disagrees with your politics? Max Cleland on Iraq War (no music) If you cite fault because Cleland served in Vietnam, how do you (again general not specific “you”) dismiss the views of Tammy Duckworth and Steven L. Robinson, the latter who speaks about Sen Obama’s efforts bipartisan efforts to support veterans & who criticizes Sen McCain’s lack of involvement, or the views of Army veterans Koby Langley (82nd Airborne) and Clint Douglas (20th Special Forces Group) who are supporting Sen Obama? For those who value the voice of American veterans and have interest in other viewpoints, you might find value in looking at the 2006 book Max Cleland co-authored, “In Conflict takes a rare look at the Iraqi War through the words of those who have fought it. The book features more than two dozen veterans from all military branches, from fighter pilots, nurses, medics, and foot soldiers to prison guards, POWs, and reservists, each accompanied by a compelling photograph. Together they comprise a group portrait of American men and women located all over the country and from all age, race, and socioeconomic groups -- men and women whose voices, surprisingly, are rarely heard in the din of discussion on this endlessly analyzed subject. They speak from veterans' hospitals, homes, army bases, and homeless shelters. While their viewpoints are as diverse as their backgrounds -- some supportive, some opposing, some simply confused – In Conflict captures one thing these eloquent commentators share: all have been irrevocably changed by their experience.” Contrary to the advocated perception, there is no uniform military perspective … e.g., as was reported in Army Times last month “Troops contribute more to Obama campaign: “… in terms of total contributions during the 2008 election cycle, 859 service members have contributed a combined $335,536 to Obama as of June 30, an average of about $391 a person. “In comparison, 558 service members have contributed a combined $280,513 to Sen. John McCain, an average of $503 a person. “Running a close third in the contributions is Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who has suspended his run for the Republican presidential nomination but has not formally dropped out of the race. He has received $232,411 in contributions from 537 military members, an average of $433 a person.” *More interesting, im-ever-ho, and perhaps telling, is donations of overseas military personnel are considered: “Among soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain. That was less than the amount received by Republican Ron Paul, who collected $45,512 from 99 soldiers serving abroad, the report said. If there is one uniform military perspective, perhaps it might be support of the US Constitution, which they (& others) swear to uphold. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concisely: Yes, anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Humans have impacted their environment deleteriously in the past, and humans will in the future. (And yes, non-anthropogenic climate change is occurring too.) At the same time: No, I don’t accept dystopic ‘doomsday’ climate change scenarios. All science should be subject to skepticism; it’s an adversarial activity by design. Much of what played out/portrayed as scientific skepticism or counter-arguments in most of the blog-o-sphere is not unlike the majority of what gets played out/portrayed in the commercial media about skydiving. How the science gets applied (or mis-applied) to policy or how the science/pseudo-science is politicized is the issue. Science is a process that generates data/information/results that can be used for good or for bad, depending on how the human (politician, lobbyist, pundit, corporate shill, venture capitalist, start-up CEO) uses it. The debate is what to do about anthropogenic climate change, at what cost ($$$, lives, land, etc), when then cost will be paid, and who will pay it. Doing nothing is one policy option. Reverting to a pre-industrial civilization is another policy option (a dumb one, imo … but nonetheless one policy option). More importantly to me, I'm on the side of informed debate by a larger portion of the citizenry: people aren't stupid and democracy works best when folks have access to information to make decisions. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Ice, being a three dimensional animal, should be measured in cubic kilometers, shouldn't it? I ask that in all sincerety. Those reports are partially an artifact of the instrumentation used to obtain data (2D visual satellite imagery) and the method for comparison (to older satellite images that are 2D too). It's also due to the fact that thickness of arctic sea ice varies. Yes, folks talk about both volume and mass of ice lost. E.g., "The Thinning of Arctic Sea Ice, 1988–2003: Have We Passed a Tipping Point?" Journal of Climate, 2005; "Has Arctic Sea Ice Rapidly Thinned?" Journal of Climate, 2002; "Arctic Ocean sea ice volume: What explains its recent depletion?" JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 2005; "A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: Increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice loss" Geophys. Res. Lett, 2007; and "Perspectives on the Arctic's Shrinking Sea-Ice CoverScience, 2007 VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I think one-third of the electorate doesn't even understand the title of the thread, and 80% of the electorate doesn't care about those issues. Sad commentary, perhaps, but there you have it. You may be correct. Nonetheless, the electorate is not dumb ... they may occasionally say dumb things & do dumb things - some more often than others, but people are not inherently stupid. A democracy -- or representative republic --functions better when the electorate is more informed. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Unsure if it was intentional or not because it's unclear – do you realize that you failed to describe federal programs, i.e., like the ARPA’s Intergalactic Computer Network” or NSF funding of Terry Winograd and his two grad students on the mathematics underlying the world wide web? Instead you described Congressional additions (aka “earmarks”). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One viewpoint on the issue was expressed in Tom Friedman’s Sunday Op-Ed column from the NY Times: “Georgia on My Mind” Excerpts: “On Wednesday, The New York Times on the Web flashed a headline that caught my eye: ‘U.S. to Unveil $1 Billion Aid Package to Repair Georgia.’ Wow, I thought. That’s great: $1 billion to fix Georgia’s roads and schools. But as I read on, I quickly realized that I had the wrong Georgia. We’re going to spend $1 billion to fix the Georgia between Russia and Turkey, not the one between South Carolina and Florida. .. “That focus needs to be on strengthening our capacity for innovation — our most important competitive advantage. If we can’t remain the most innovative country in the world, we are not going to have $1 billion to toss at either the country Georgia or the state of Georgia. ... “While we still have enormous innovative energy bubbling up from the American people, it is not being supported and nurtured as needed in today’s supercompetitive world. Right now, we feel like a country in a very slow decline — in infrastructure, basic research and education — just slow enough to lull us into thinking that we have all the time and money to play around in Tbilisi, Georgia, more than Atlanta, Georgia. “As Chuck Vest, the former president of M.I.T., said to me: ‘Both candidates have spoken a lot about ‘change,’ but in most areas of need, innovation is the only mechanism that can actually change things in substantive ways. The irony of ignoring innovation as a theme for our times is that the U.S. is still the most innovative nation on the planet,’ Vest added. ‘But we can only maintain that lead if we invest in the people, the research that enable it and produce a policy environment in which it can thrive rather than being squelched. Our strong science and technology base built by past investments, our free market economy built on a base of democracy and a diverse population are unmatched to date; but we are taking it for granted.’ “A developed country’s competitiveness now comes primarily from its capacity to innovate — the ability to create the new products and services that people want, adds Curtis Carlson, chief executive of SRI International, a Silicon Valley research company. As such, ‘innovation is now the only path to growth, prosperity, environmental sustainability and national security for America.’. [Who recognized that back in 1944? Vannevar Bush. – nerdgirl] ‘America is still the best place for innovation,’ said Carlson. ‘These issues must be at the top of the national agenda because they determine our ability to provide health care, clean energy and economic opportunity for our citizens.’ ... “Alas, though, the Republicans just had a convention where abortion got vastly more attention than innovation, calls to buttress Tbilisi, Georgia, swamped any for Atlanta, Georgia, and ‘drill, baby, drill’ was chanted instead of ‘innovate, baby, innovate.’ “If we were serious about weakening both Putin and Putinism, we would be investing $1 billion in Georgia Tech to invent alternatives to oil — the high price of which is the only reason the Kremlin is strong enough today to bully its neighbors and its own people.” Friedman, imo, correctly recogizes the multi-fold connections between US technological competiveness & foreign policy. The former is a key component that empowers the US to implement and execute the latter. As is usually the case, listing the problems are often easy ... the bigger challenge is figuring out the solution(s). How should the US go about maintaining technological competiveness and fostering innovation? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Following up on my post on physical infrastructure & the political candidates (“What do you think about the Presidential candidate’s platforms (or lack thereof) on US infrastructure?”), another critical policy area, im-ever-ho, is US innovation and technological competiveness. Where do the candidates stand and what do they propose, if anything? Sen McCain on Technology emphasizes tax breaks. Sen McCain’s platform on “Climate Change” also includes advocacy that “Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.” In addition to private and public innovation as a core piece of Sen Obama's policy proposals on “ New Energy for America Plan,” technology & innovation has been a core piece of his platform since he announced his candidacy. “Technology and Innovation for a New Generation.” In reading through both Sen Obama’s is a lot more detailed and with a lot more specific numbers/figures. I credit that as more of an artifact the way Republican campaigns are run than anything else. Side-by-side comparison of Sen Obama and Sen McCain’s proposals from non-partisan American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) finds that on two big issues they selected: the R&D Tax Credit & H1-B Immigration Reform, both Sen Obama & Sen McCain propose the former be made permanent and the latter increased in number. Microsoft’s Bill Gates wants the number of H1-B visas increased too. (Those are not necessarily the ones I would have selected, and I disagree with both candidates and Gates on H1-B visas – it’s a band-aid on the declining US S&T investment and participation.) Do you want to know more on what the candidates’ proposed policies are on technology and innovation and by what means they plan to accomplish them … or is US innovation & technological competiveness just not something that you really care about when it comes to Presidential politics? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying