nerdgirl

Serious question: where do you place the role of the Awakening Councils and Sons of Iraq? Alternatively, what does that suggest w/r/t operational needs in Afghanistan? My (short) analysis. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I thought the call for more troops was to execute population-centric counterinsurgency operations. Or, in another's assessment: "Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate. "This is a different kind of fight. We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations in an environment that is uniquely complex. Three regional insurgencies have intersected with a dynamic blend of local power struggles in a country damaged by 30 years of conflict. This makes for a situation that defies simple solutions or quick fixes. Success demands a comprehensive counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign. (Alternatively, another has expressed the concept noting that “a whole of government approach is required, one that integrates all tools available international and interagency partners.”) "Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population. “Hard-earned credibility and face-to-face relationships, rather than close combat, will achieve success." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Nobody's dying waiting for reinforcements. This isn't the Battle of the Bulge for God's sake. That kind of hyperbole is an insult to the troops, and only serves to weaken morale. People going on like that should be ashamed. I also read it as an example of the failure of the critical domestic component of executing a counterinsurgency strategy. Domestic audiences matter for executing COIN strategies abroad; they don't (so much) for counterterrorism ... but you know that. /Marg. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Might one additional factor for increased fatalities be due to larger numbers of troops deployed? President Obama has authorized deployment of more troops than had been previously been deployed to Afghanistan. It's an oversimplification but a simple fact that does not seem to be recognized by many. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If -- & that's a mighty big *if* -- I understand John's argument correctly, whether or not Iraq was a threat to us is not the main point. As I've read John's words over the years there is usually a strong underlying moral or ethical component. Going to war for moral or ethical ideals – to end oppression, slavery, and/or genocide – is humanitarian intervention or the basis of Wilsonian foreign policy, which (you may know) was the dominant liberal foreign policy of the 20th Century. (The counter to Wilsonian idealism is realpolitik, i.e., the dominant foreign policy of Kissinger, Pres Nixon, and Pres Reagan.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This quote or excerpts of it frequently gets invoked. The full version of the quote from Mill's The Contest in America is more circumspect and qualified:“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." He was writing about those in the North who opposed the Civil War and those in the South who argued on economic grounds to the British to try to pursuade them to remain neutral in 1861 & 1862. He’s also arguing for the importance of *not* sacrificing principle -- what he calls “virtuous cause” -- for ease. Mill was also writing about battles, both metaphorical -- which was largely his domain as an English Parliamentarian and academic -- and literal, against those would advocate for (in the metaphorical & literary battle) and pursue war and tactics without “good cause” and through unethical means just as much as those who would avoid war. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Something I had wondered about and have found another source that had similar speculations was the difference in China’s treatment of President Clinton during his first visit and President Obama on his visit From the conservative The Economist: “In China, Mr Obama’s handlers connived at a programme which saw his ‘town-hall meeting’ in Shanghai open only to handpicked young Communists [& basically only available, even with those restrictions, to Shanghai viewers – nerdgirl] and his joint ‘press conference’ with Hu Jintao, his Chinese counterpart, confined to statements from the leaders with no questions allowed. It was in glaring contrast to the comparative free-for-all of the visit in 1998 by Bill Clinton, who took on President Jiang Zemin on live television. “In 1998 Mr Clinton’s visit was still in the long shadow of the 1989 Tiananmen killings. Since then, China has emerged as a great global power. Its political system, it claims, has been vindicated, and it likes to talk to America as an equal, or indeed as creditor to debtor. Yet its leaders seem more petrified than ever of what might happen if its people were given unfettered access to the thoughts of an American president. This may partly reflect the paranoid style of Mr Hu. But it also reflects how much the system as a whole fears those freedoms Mr Obama should have defended more boldly. “For observers in China, as in America, this conformity with Chinese norms seemed to confirm the relative shift of power between the two countries.” In particular, that last explanation does not make sense to me. If the power was *perceived* as having shifted and international issues dominated policy decisions, why the greater level of control and limit of access to the domestic population? As The Economist writers assert, President Clinton’s visit was in the shadow of Tiananmen, and it was a much less controlled, i.e., freer and more widely available exchange. Couple with the shutdown of the access to the Berlin Twitterwall ... I’m wondering if it says more about Chinese domestic politics than anything international. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In retrospect, refusing to give my Digitude to the Nepali soldier, who *really* wanted it. A group, all carrying M16s, came out of the rhododendrons, and he was very interested in my altimeter. Apparently my Digitude was a better altimeter than what they had. (If they had been carrying AK-47, I would have given it up … because they would have more likely been insurgents at that time). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sure, show where the church has claimed to not support capital punishment and I would agree. I don't actually follow the church and really don't know what they say on the topic. The Catholic Church has not been hesitant about w/r/t opposition to the death penalty. Pope John Paul II called capital punishment “cruel and unnecessary.” See, the “Evangelium Vitae” (The Gospel of Life) issued 25 March 1995. The Catholic Church and its cardinals and bishops have issued numerous statements against the death penalty over the last 35 years, including opposition to death penalty for convicted terrorists. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Follow-up with a correction to my post a couple days ago on the discovery of the remains of 250 Australian war dead at Fromelles. I wrote: On astute SC reader sent me a PM – Thank you! – noting that their names instead of being on the Menin Gate in Ypres, Belgium are in all probability on the VC Corner Australian Cemetery Memorial Wall in France. The 2nd image from the top here shows the Memorial Wall “commemorating by name 1,299 Australians who died in the Battle of Fromelles and who have no known grave.” The 250 names are likely to be found there. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don’t do “hook-ups” … I’m old & boring … but in a hypothetical situation like that I would reply with a 4th option: “Why do you want to know? Does it matter?” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Terrorism is a federal crime, yes. 18 U.S.C. § 2331. To be prosecuted as a terrorist, it has to be shown that the actions (motive) were and appear to be intended to cause terror, rather than for personal financial or other gain, because of negligence or stupidity, etc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That just said the Secretary of the Army gets to decide, didn't see where it said what would differentiate murder from terrorism. In this post from a while back, I provided some of the USG definitions of terrorism, including the DoD's (per JP 1-0): “terrorism -- The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. [emphasis mine] “terrorist -- An individual who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives. “terrorist group -- Any number of terrorists who assemble together, have a unifying relationship, or are organized for the purpose of committing an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of their political, religious, or ideological objectives.” W/r/t the Fort Hood shooting relevant portions, imo, include reference to political, religious, or ideological objectives as motivation [has to be shown]; it excludes criminal acts [that has to be eliminated, which may be a judgement call by someone/multiple someones], and the reference to “unlawful” violence, which other USG definitions, e.g., FBI, DHS, CFR, do not necessarily include. While the majority of terrorist acts are committed by non-uniformed individuals (non-state actors), the DoD definition does not, however, exclude the possibility that states & uniformed military can act as terrorists if they commit “unlawful violence.” I suspect when it was written the thought was other state's uniformed military, but that is a speculation on my part. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have a link? I had dinner last night with a group of friends from my church that included a surgeon who very recently returned from a deployment to Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center. One of the comments he made, when he brought up the Ft Hood shooting (I left it to him to speak about it if he wanted to/initiated) was the shortage of folks with medical capabilities across all fields in the Army. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A follow-up to one of the discussions this thread w/r/t the “54,896 names engraved on the sides of the Menin Gate [who] are British and former British Empire soldiers whose bodies were never found. They have no graves,” regarding how almost 55,000 bodies could not be found. While there are multiple explanations – some are buried in unmarked graves, some were incinerated/blasted until nothing remained, and every year new remains are found, like those mentioned in this story from NPR on the discovery of a “WWI-Era Mass Grave Rediscovered In France” containing the remains of some 250 British and Australian soldiers who previously had no graves.“A landscape of church spires and farmers' fields surrounds the tiny French village of Fromelles. Today, there's little sign that this was once the site of a horrific battle. In July 1916, thousands of fresh-faced British and Australian recruits stormed across no man's land in an attempt to take heavily fortified German trenches. “The Battle of Fromelles ended in total slaughter. About 7,000 soldiers of the British Empire were cut down in two days by German guns and shells. Buried by the Germans behind enemy lines, many of these men might have remained hidden forever if not for some determined historians and ground-penetrating radar. “David Richardson of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission says they hope to identify some of the soldiers by matching their DNA with that of living relatives. ‘We found 250, exactly 250, sets of remains, and it's very heavy, wet, clay soil here. So they would have been at a fairly constant temperature, fairly wet all the time, and so, preservation was pretty good. Hair, of course, still there on some of the remains. You know, 93 years later, we're still finding DNA.’ “David Richardson says as his team studies each set of remains, trying to establish an identity and cause of death, a picture begins to emerge of the individual soldier. “Not far from where the archaeologists are working, bricklayers are laying the foundations for the first cemetery to be built by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in 50 years on land donated by the village. Fromelles has had a bond with Australia since the Great War. The town's school has two clocks. One shows French time, the other the time in Melbourne.” There soon may be 250 fewer names on the Menin Gate. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Um, actually you have. In this thread and in others with multiple ad hominems. Even this whole tangent is directed at me. Because in your view, I don’t/can’t know what I’m talking about. You chose to make the thread about me rather than addressing the problems with your assertions. You were called out previously in this thread for ‘playing the player’ rather than playing the ball. I am going to set this record straight, I don't care what the forum, I will not have my integrity attacked because someone's feelings got hurt. It’s not feelings. My feelings aren’t hurt. I don’t think you’re referring to your feelings? Perhaps you are? Originally it was about facts and how they are or are not constructed and the conclusions one draws. Later it became about who gets to have authority to challenge your assertions. I challenged assertions you made that were not supported by the facts. I even tried to be nice about it even, calling it “something less than complete information,” i.e., giving you an opportunity to consider based on more information that you didn’t have before (because I’m giving you credit that if you did know, you would not have made the statements – that’s not a knock on you). I provided you with a completely honorable out, i.e., a way that you could ‘save face’. Step back and look at what I and others have wrote dispassionately. If your tangent on those who you thought didn't/couldn't know: wasn’t intended to refer to me, who did you mean it to refer to and why did you include it in your reply to me? Almost everyone here, myself very much included, knows and respects you for your story and your experiences. I could also ask if you missed (I don’t know what your intention is, that’s why I frequently give options and here am assuming the best rather than choosing a pejorative) my experiences from an insurgency in an adjacent nation, Nepal, in March 2003. Because I'm not "SWAT" or uniformed military does that not 'count'? In my first couple months at PNT, I p&*%d off an Air Force Colonel. At first I couldn’t even figure out what I’d done or said. Turns out I asked questions and said something publicly that contradicted something that he’d said previously without having full information and that didn’t fit with who he thought could speak authoritatively on the topic. He tried to make my life miserable. (Didn’t work … but he tried.) My boss, a retired Army artillery Colonel and then-SES, who I absolutely adore and respect, explained his take on the situation to me and took steps to insulate me. The Air Force Colonel retired in 2007. Saw him last April at Carlisle Barracks. Now he loves me. Not sure what I’d done this time either. But in his eyes (he still can be an abrasive jerk [interagency consensus not just my opinion] … but I’m in his “group” now), I’m now valuable. Sometimes it just takes time. I recognize and accept that there is a risk in challenging assertions and assumptions, especially closely held ones. Sometimes there are rewards too. Less often ... but it does happen. Being an iconoclast is one of the many reasons that I'd never make a good politician. There are reasons to cut off dialogue that I can appreciate. This doesn’t rise to one for me. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the very kind words. Very much appreciated. Naw, I'm tenacious and there are many people here who make it worth the investment of my time. Some who I know from real-life skydiving, a couple who I've met through intersections of other activities, and others who I hope to meet irl (just a short list).

I've done none of that to you. Um, actually you have. In this thread and in others with multiple ad hominems. Even this whole tangent is directed at me. Because in your view, I don’t/can’t know what I’m talking about. You chose to make the thread about me rather than addressing the problems with your assertions. You were called out previously in this thread for ‘playing the player’ rather than playing the ball. ---- -- ---- -- ---- This was a slam on me for anyone who might be slightly confused reading this. Max knows that I was a political appointee in President Bush’s admin because I had told him via a PM. I was the lowliest category of appointees (Class C), something that Max characterizes/dismisses/belittles as “not seen anything other than a desk” therefore not having the authority he does or experience he does to speak on the issue. Can't dispute the argument, so he argues based on the person, i.e., playing the player. He’s trying to use something he knows that most folks don’t against me. But it’s not a secret. If you’re ever in my office, the center of my ‘wall of me’ is a framed picture of the Pentagon. Even have a pic of Rumsfeld that was a gift from a retired Army Colonel who worked with me; it's a lttle bit of an inside joke but I like it anyways. My service in OSD is just not something I feel the need to advertise. It is part of me; it doesn’t define or circumscribe me, my experiences, or how I think. I’ve made a choice to construct arguments based on facts and logic rather than appealing to any supposed (or lack thereof) authority. No pretense of altruism or anything like that: there’s also a selfish motive – it’s fun for me. My ego is healthy enough that I don’t need to invoke the OSD-thing. Because Max knows that I served in the Bush admin, he knows that it’s hard to assert with any integrity that I’m partisan. I was part of Rumsfeld’s OSD. Been there, still have the snowflakes. Only Ranger Tab I got was “PowerPoint Ranger.” Always been explicit about that. I was asked to serve and I did proudly. Was asked to stay on as an SES, but I declined for lots of reasons. Was an Army HQE for a year after leaving. I would, in time, like to go back to the Pentagon. I am one a very small number of folks who genuinely loved my time in The Building. I was asked to serve because some folks in the DoD thought I had valuable knowledge, skills, and experience (including uniformed folks, since those are the only ones Max seems to value - the rest in his words "never get it."). Those latter two are the parts Max chooses to ignore or wants to suggest I don’t have as a way to invalidate my “serene intelligent bubble” challenges to his assertions. I don’t get mad and I don’t get emotional. Usually neither generate very little productive, imo … especially on the internet. But I don’t like it being about me … & prefer to be semi-anonymous ‘nerdgirl’/Marg. I am genuinely curious as to what people think and how/why they got to that thinking. I like the challenge of constructing arguments & remaining civil even when sworn at or called a communist or whatever. I’m always nice. Ask tough questions … but am nice. And I sure as heck don’t want to be viewed as speaking for the entire Bush administration or OSD (Rumsfeld’s or Gates’ - I served under both SecDefs). When I showed Max’s assertions to be false and challenged his authority, his response was first to yell at me “Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about" and then to make ad hominems. One outright and one wrapped in that slam quoted above. So yeah, I probably could have ignored it … but as I wrote, it’s not a secret. Some things aren’t other people’s business. I get to do, see, and experience some really neat things. At the same time I value listening to others' experiences because as an idealist I think the opinions of everyday Americans matter. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Your anecdote reminds me of one of the young guys I currently have working for me. He spent time working as a contractor in northern Virginia for AFRICOM. Along the way he had some interaction with guys from Special Forces that really impacted him. His answer to everything is now SF. He's a really smart guy, but the work he's doing now has a wider perspective. At first, it could be quite frustrating for me and other folks. Now I usually challenge him to find the best non-SF solution. He's smart - he knows what I'm doing. It was much more effective tho' than trying to convince him that his enamoration -- at times it's like a 'man-crush' -- with SF is not valuable, (which isn't something I want to do anyway). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm just going to leave aside the whole kinetic issue since that one seems to be problematic to discuss with you. So what conclusion do you then take from that? Do you insult, belittle, dismiss, or refuse to hear those who don't have what you perceive to be work of value? Is more "us" versus "them" of benefit? Is that the most effective strategy? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Which cases are you thinking of? The al-Nishiri case and Khadr cases are pretty sound, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If that is your definition, should every apprehension by local or federal law enforcement that involves anything beyond a knock on the door result in those detained being turned over to the military for military prosecution? I doubt it. A more common usage of kinetic w/r/t warfare involves dropping bombs, rolling in with tanks, detonating IEDs (& trying to avoid them), and shooting bullets. Of course Marg....I have no f**king idea what I'm talking about...sorry to disturb your serene intelligent bubble... Max, my apologies if something came across like that. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but do accept responsibility for the things I write. And I apologize if my words were seen as hurtful. Communicating via internet is challenging. I'm trying to have a calm, non-emotionally-driven, fact-based conversation with you w/r/t some assertions that were not factual and how you got to those conclusions. You haven't distrubed anything with me. Ad hominems at me don't help with communication. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Ah, yes, perhaps not the finest example. I guess I think first of Congressionally-chartered commissions, which do tend to be independent and I would argue have been valuable, e.g., 9-11 Commission, the Intelligence Commission, the Church Commission. There is a certain amount of politics that do end up in them, in my experience. I briefed a Congressionally-chartered Commission a couple years (not Congess-folk). It was interesting. I'm not sure how to completely remove any/all politics. And at some level, one person's politics is another's disagreement. That's hard to parse sometimes. W/r/t the Fort Hood shooting and possibility of a Congressionally-chartered Commission or Congressional hearing, which are even *more* politicized, I can speculate on some possible areas of investigation. But until the DoD and FBI finish their investigations and analysis, I'm not sure Congressional hearings are warranted. *If* the investigation and analysis (both internal and external) raise unanswered questions or expose unadressed systematic gaps, then I would support heartily Congressional-level investigations. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Okay … & it’s been shown that your framework (apprehended in theater, by military assets, in a kinetic situation) does not apply to the 5 detainees to be tried to federal court on international terrorism charges. In the case that your framework does apply, Khadr, the Obama administration is doing what you recommend, i.e., military tribunal. If that is your definition, should every apprehension by local or federal law enforcement that involves anything beyond a knock on the door result in those detained being turned over to the military for military prosecution? I doubt it. A more common usage of kinetic w/r/t warfare involves dropping bombs, rolling in with tanks, detonating IEDs (& trying to avoid them), and shooting bullets. I guess I’ve missed it. As your original assertions and conclusions were based on something less than complete information, does that suggest to you that it might be worth revisiting? Or is that what you are claiming you are doing? I guess I’m not seeing that. Or does that not matter to you? If not, why not? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying