nerdgirl

It’s the inverse: liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican party. The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a copt-out, as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves). When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.) When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.) Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists). Things change, eh? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don’t know what you mean by that question. Science is a process that is repeatable/reproducible, open/public, and not subjective relating to the physical/natural world to determine causal relations. The process of experimental science generates both explanations (“thoughts”) and new questions (“thoughts”); scientists tend to be very comfortable with uncertainty, even actively demanding measures of uncertainty (as opposed to imprecision or inaccuracy). What do you mean by “eliminate thoughts”? Or do you mean eliminate doubt? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This would be good if not for the fact than many times liberals push for change is because is makes them "feel good" about themselves because "they care". Not for good reason I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you provide a couple examples? Thanks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What would you imagine if rather than an either/or proposition, if it were possible to do/feel/understand/perceive both? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. Colleagues w/whom I work/collaborate/communicate in the international community very much hope so too! If it's a portent (as the current adminstration draws to a close), what feared to be confrontation between the US & Iran at the recent Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Review Conference (RevCon), 7-18 April, did not take place. Ambassador Eric Javits (relatively new to the post, moving up to replace retiring Amb Dennis Mahley) in his opening statement -- as representative & voice of the USG -- did not accuse countries of violating the CWC, which was the case at the last CWC RevCon (2003). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

hehehe when I flew out to Italy a few months ago, I was surprised to get one on board when I knew there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell the TSA (thousands standing around) would let me bring it on. Uhhh, huh? November 2006 I tried to bring 4 sets of dinnerware + serving utensils (1 set in pink, orange, purple, & green each - even w/the better exchange rate then, cheaper to buy it in France) that I purchased back on carry-on luggage from de Gaulle to Dulles. I was only in Paris for 48h - so all carry-on. French version of TSA would not let me bring the silverware -- knives, forks or spoons -- on board. Ended up checking my bag. (Just for clarification: I didn't go to Paris to buy silverware, just happened to walk by a shop.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you mean overall or in Congress or former occupants of the White House? Do you have a source that breaks down all members of Congress? This webpage lists Senate members. And shows Republican: 15 veterans/4 combat veterans (2 retiring) Democrat: 14 veterens/6 combat veterans 1. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) Army Reserve 1969-75 2. #Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) U.S. Army 1943-47 3. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Army Reserves 1968-74 4. #Thomas Carper (D-DEL) U.S. Navy 1968-1973 Navy Reserve 1973-1991 5. Tom Harkins (D-IA) U.S. Navy 1962-67 Navy Reserve 1968-74 6. #Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Medal Of Honor U.S. Army 1943-47 7. Tim Johnson (D-SD) U.S. Army 1969- 8. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) U.S. Army 1951-53 9. #John Robert Kerry (D-MA) U.S. Navy 1966-1970 10. Herb Kohl (D-WI) Army Reserve 1958-64 11. #Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Army 1942-1946 12. Bill Nelson (D-FL) U.S. Army 1968-1970 13. Jack Reed (D-RI) U.S. Army 1967-1969 14. #Jim Webb (D-VA) U.S. Marine Corps 1964-1972 Ass't Sec. of Defense 1984-1987 Secretary of the Navy 1987-1988 1. Robert Bennett (R-UT) National Guard 1957-61 2. Thad Cochran (R-MS) U.S. Navy 1959-61 3. Larry Craig (R-ID) National Guard 1970-72 4. Michael Enzi (R-WY) Air National Guard 1967-73 5. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) • U.S. Air Force 1983-1989 National Guard 1989-1994 6. #Chuck Hagel (R-NE) U.S. Army 1967-68 7. James M. Inhofe (R-OK) U.S. Army 1954-56 8. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) National Guard 1966-1972 9. Richard Lugar (R-IN) U.S. Navy 1957-60 10. #John R. McCain (R-AZ) U.S. Navy 1958-81 *POW Vietnam 1967-73 11. Pat Roberts (R-KS) U.S. Marine Corps (1958-62) 12. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Army Reserves 1973-86 13. Arlen Specter (R-PA) U.S. Air Force 1951-53 14. #Ted Stevens (R-AK) Army Air Corps 1943-46 15. #John R. Warner (R-VA) U.S. Navy 1945-46 Marine Corps 1950-52 Marine Corps Reserves 1952-1964 VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Eliot Cohen, John Bolton, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Paul Wolfowitz were “nobodies” in 1997? 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 reminder of the critical value of operational expertise ... & in the context of OIF & this thread particularly (reconstruction), the expertise of those with operational experience and understanding w/r/t Iraqi culture (beyond Ahmed Chalabi) and international development/post-conflict rebuilding may have just as important as military operations expertise. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You’re absolutely correct that autocratic dictators can have very stable states. Democracy is messy and complicated. Perhaps the anarchy (not sure how much of Iraq is really anarchic now, as opposed to parts of 2004-05) & instability has benefited the radical Islamists or Iran? Removal of Hussayn made Iran the dominant indigenous power in the Middle East – unexpected/unintended consequence. Which is goes back to the start of this thread – reconstructing Iraq & who pays for it. Is it in the US interest to insure that there is a (reasonably) stable counterweight to balance Iran in the Middle East? If Iran was able to be the unchallenged hegemon (power) in the Middle East, what state would be most threatened? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yeah so? They want lots of wars. They really have very little pull. All they really are is a group of lobbyist that want military build up because they are all tied to companies that profit from military contracts. How so? While a number of prominent PNAC affiliates (e.g., VP Richard Cheney, former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, former USD-Policy Doug Feith, and former ASD Richard Perle [Pres. Reagan’s admin]) did/do have connections to private firms, the most interesting one, imo, is former DepSecDef Paul Wolfowitz, who did not have the extensive corporate connections (if he had any before 2000). Imo, Wolfowitz genuinely believed in the power of democracy and the free market and that the US should intervene militarily to advance those goals. He did not consider containment to be effective and had long advoctaed for "pre-emptive" use of the US military to advance US foreign policy and American ideals. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Just for clarification, the Nature news story (not peer-reviewed article), "Swiss 'dignity' law is threat to plant biology, is on the decision of the Swiss govt, the reaction of scientists, and the legal battles. Excerpts:"Government ethics-committee guidelines could halt techniques such as hybridization of roses." "When it comes to the ethics of experimenting on living subjects, plant biologists have had cause for a certain smugness. But perhaps no longer in Switzerland." "The Swiss federal government's ethics committee on non-human biotechnology has mapped out guidelines to help granting agencies decide which research applications deeply offend the dignity of plants — and hence become unfundable." "Although most people might be bewildered that a discussion on how to define 'plant dignity' should be taking place at all, the stakes for Swiss plant scientists are high. The Gene Technology Law, which came into effect in 2004, stipulates that 'the dignity of creatures' should be considered in any research. The phrase has been widely criticized for its general woolliness, but it indisputably includes plants." "All plant biotechnology grant applications must now include a paragraph explaining the extent to which plant dignity is considered. “But scientists don't know what it means,” says Beat Keller of the Institute of Plant Biology at the University of Zurich who is running the first field trial — of disease-resistant corn (maize) — to be approved under the new legislation. “At the moment not even authorities who decide on grants know what the 'dignity of plants' really means,” says Markus Schefer, a constitution lawyer at the University of Basel and a member of the ethics committee. “That's why we were asked to deliberate.” "'The constitution says that the 'dignity of creatures' must be taken into account in the gene-technology arena, which is why the term has been adopted into the regulations. The government called on the advice of its ethics committee two years ago to help develop a definition for plants. “My first reaction was — what the heck are we doing considering the dignity of plants,” says Schefer. “But this very broad provision exists, and we have to help to prevent a legal mire.”" "Keller sees the issue as providing another tool for opponents to argue against any form of plant biotechnology, which is already very difficult to conduct in Switzerland. Schefer says that things will start to become clearer when legal challenges to specific research projects come to court, and case law becomes established." "The definition of what constitutes dignity in animals is currently being tested in a Zurich court. Primate-research projects at the ETH Zurich technology institute, which involve separating young marmosets from their mothers, have been put on hold while the court decides if they conflict with the animals' dignity. A ruling is expected this year. Whichever way it falls, the decision is likely to end up in the federal constitutional court." Imo, it appears that someone(s) made science policy without understanding science ... or was reading too much dystopic science fiction/science fantasy on the shores of Lake Lucerne, i.e., what some have called "Bio-Luddites." There are underlying questions w/r/t biotechnology science & biotechnology ethics, legal, & social issues (ELSI). This isn't one I would have envisioned but working in nanotechnology & nanotechnology policy (including nano-biotechnology), the ability of humans to imagine creative scenarios never fails to amaze me!

That's a question about which I think a lot. Not so much looking back to Operartion Desert Shield/Storm & should the US have removed Hussayn then or OIF but looking forward. Do you think the US should intervene militarily in Sudan? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, I don't think that was the intention of his comments. More observation. Not as high as they have risen over the last 4 years. Iirc, during the invasion and immediately after was a dip in crude oil prices. But no, I don't see anything to suggest that OIF is the *leading* cause of current crude oil prices. I would suggest the largest cause of high crude oil prices is demand, largely from China (distorted and subsidized) and India. Secondary causal factors, subject to variance in order, include supply (no more decaying dinosaurs to make oil); less "cushion" in stocks by OPEC countries; and risk premia due to uncertainty in the Middle East (OIF is probably a contributing factor here), Venezuela, and Africa. If the US unilaterally withdraws from Iraq, risk is likely to increase and crude oil prices along with it. Concur most heartily. I do believe the USG is trying to be. Execution & implementation of those intentions are proving to be much more challenging than initially anticipated and requiring long-term efforts. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How important? 250B/yr worth of importance? I think we have far greater uses for that sort of money. If we could pull the troops and just contribute 50B/yr (matching their 50) in infrastructure work, that would be an acceptable step forward. But it seems more like a chasm than a step. Money is not the single metric I would use to determine importance. (And I don't suspect you would either.) Most of the supplemental money does not go for reconstruction as the numbers you cite suggest. It's a good question at its core for which I don't have a good answer, especially not one that would not make other posts of mine look short by comparison. I do think there is some self-perpetuation of the importance of the Middle East as a region, which the US & western powers have helped perpetuate/sustain over the last 100 years and of course, is tied to oil ... & now Iran's alleged nuclear (weapons) program. Tried to pose/explore some of those questions in this thread last fall. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Let’s look more closely ay the two alleged “success” stories you cited. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Al Qa’eda's chielf of propaganda operations. Very bad person. Likely source of intelligence, needed to be apprehended, and removed from society. Two critical questions: (1) Was it interrogation by torture that led to obtaining useful information? (2) Was information obtained via interrogation by torture useful? If you review the DefenseLink transcript listing of things he confessed to (that have been publically released) – from a plot to assassinate former President Carter to a plot to kill Pope John Paul II to the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center – he confessed to everything. Was he asked if he was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in November 1963? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also compares himself to President George Washington – is that credible? What proved to be the single largest source of intelligence obtained from him? A computer hard drive seized during Mohammed's capture. (So it wasn’t any part of the interrogation, empathetic, ‘enhanced,’ or torture.) If you read the transcript, it’s less than clear what motivated his alleged assertions. At least one expert, forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner, M.D., who specializes in false confessions, “observed from the testimony transcript that his concerns about his family may have been far more influential in soliciting Mohammed’s cooperation than any earlier reported mistreatment.” During testimony, the CIA official cautioned that “many of Mohammed's claims during interrogation were ‘white noise’ designed to send the U.S. on wild goose chases or to get him through the day’s interrogation session.” Of what was later confirmed to be accurate, what percentage was actually obtained through ‘enhanced interrogation’? And more importantly, what *was* missed or was lost because of ‘enhanced interrogation’? How much time, energy, & expense was wasted following up on false confessions? It is just – if not more – reasonable & supported by evidence and experts that more information useful to save US lives may have been obtained if he was NOT subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation.’ That’s the core of the effectiveness argument; effective interrogation techniques should be employed. Torture is not effective. Next case: Abu Zubaydah. Of what was cited as useful intelligence gained from Abu Zubaydah, the leading piece that is mentioned – the identity of Ramzi bin al Shibh – was already known. FBI agent Dennis Lormel told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002, i.e., a month before Abu Zubaydah was even apprehended. So yes, Abu Zubaydah did confirm what was already known. Is there any evidence to suggest that ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques were critical for the tertiary confirmation? No. You didn’t mention Abd al Rahim al Nashiri. I’m sure you know that al Nashiri was the 3rd terrorist suspect on whom the CIA Director has acknowledged “enhanced interrogation” techniques were used including waterboarding. How accurate and useful was the information obtained from al Nashiri? Again from reading the Defenselink transcript, he asserts he made up a long list of al Qa’eda plots and attacks so his captors would stop torturing him, even telling interrogators that Osama bin Laden had a nuclear bomb. Al Nashiri, in all likelihood, had very useful information. What was lost & how many opportunities were wasted because ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods were used? When the signal to noise ratio becomes so low, it ceases to be effective for anything other than distracting US investigatory efforts. Can you cite some of these CIA “operatives” who you previously mentioned? You mentioned Paul Gimigliano; he is the public affairs voice of the CIA. His job is to make the agency look good. That’s what he is paid to do, & he is usually effective, including in some very difficult situations. Tony Snow, Scott McClellan, & Ari Fleischer were very good as well, but they weren’t operational experts either. You also mentioned A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard, who has spoken about sensory deprivation and the need to insure that it does not cross the line to torture. He has also spoken on how after September 11th, US IC members consulted counterparts in “Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries” to compile a “catalog” of techniques for the CIA, which begs so many questions about inadequacy & problems with HUMINT, HUMINT training w/in the US IC. Krongard has publically acknowledged turning down ideas of ways to create pain as part of interrogation methods who he was deputy DO. If they were effective, would he do that? Explicit comments from a couple former CIA operatives who assert that torture is not effective in obtaining intelligence: Former CIA Directorate of Operations (DO), not the analysis side, officer Robert Baer: torture is “bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture’s bad enough.” Larry Johnson, another former CIA officer – operations not analyst – and former deputy director of counterterrorism at the Department of State: “I’m a former CIA officer and a former counterterrorism official. During the last few months, I have spoken with three good friends who are CIA operations officers, all of whom have worked on terrorism at the highest levels. They all agree that torturing detainees will not help us. In fact, they believe that it will hurt us in many ways. “What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust - even with a terrorist, even if it's time-consuming - than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets, who believed that national security always trumped human rights. “I am not advocating that terrorists be given room service at the Four Seasons. Some sleep deprivation - of the sort mothers of newborns all endure - and spartan living conditions are appropriate. What we must not do is use physical pain or the threat of drowning, as in ‘water-boarding,’ to gain information. Tough, relentless questioning is OK. Torture is not.” I suspect your first sentence is not inaccurate, which goes to the impeding US foreign policy & normative arguments not effectiveness. Once, however, is too many times. What has Gen Michael Hayden, USAF said w/r/t use of waterboarding now? In Congressional hearings Gen Hayden has indicated that he officially prohibited it from CIA interrogations in 2006: “It [waterboarding] is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice [post-John Yoo – nerdgirl], it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute.” If torture is as effective for interrogation as you argue, would he do that? Remember Gen Hayden was the same CIA Director who declassified and released the CIA’s “Family Jewels.” There’s also purportedly a classified Executive Order. ~~~ ~ ~~~ Summary on ineffectiveness of waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture: (1) In the 3 cases in which CIA has acknowledged use of waterboarding (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, & Abd al Rahim al Nashiri) it is unclear to dubious that “enhanced interrogation” did anything that traditional interrogation would not have. On the contrary, there is significant evidence that “enhanced interrogation” led to reams of false confessions, which took away time & resources, and may have undermined the useful intel for prosecution. (2) In at least two “ticking time bomb” scenarios, useful intelligence has been gained without the use of “enhanced interrogation,” waterboarding, or torture. (3) Torture has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers (Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi). (4) At least 60 years of operators, across multiple agencies have observed the ineffectiveness of torture in interrogation. Taken in consideration with the other 3 arguments (reciprocity on US service members, impedance of US foreign policy and national defense goals, and morals/ethics), there is no strategic, operational, or tactical advantage to employing waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture as part of investigatory process. One may argue that such a policy has (strongly) negative strategic, operational, and tactical repercussions. As you may already know, HUMINT is as much art as science. It doesn’t need to be made *more* difficult by ineffective techniques or a cloak of incredibility. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction http://www.sigir.mil/, though 31 March 2008, $46.30B in US funds has been appropriated ($30.58B spent). Through the same time period $50.33 B in Iraqi funds have been appropriated, i.e., $4B more than the US has appropriated, and International donors have pledged $15.89B. Total $112.52B. (NB: By comparison, ~$3.1B was appropriated for reconstruction of New Orleans and surrounding parishes in 2006 & 2007.) I'm still thinking about specific recommendations. Iraq is already cost-sharing in reconstruction. One would hope that the Iraqis would have some investment (some ownership) in the process as to lessen the 'tragedy of the commons' scenario. From a security perspective, the security, stabilization, and reconstruction of Iraq (the latter to reduce the risk of it becoming a failed state) are important to US foreign policy and defense interests. 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 link. I probably would have not seen it otherwise. I'm not even sure that one has to go to the kind of factors you cited above, which as you well know, serve a de facto 'weed-out' role (one can argue whether it's useful or not). I'd be very curious to see the number of graduating seniors who have all the qualifications -- no, need to change standards at all -- but there are just not available spots in medical school. I would speculate (so take it for whatever you want) that there are, at a minimum, 3 qualified medical school applicants who aren't accepted, for every 1 who is accepted. It's a tough, one might say in a good way, elite profession. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Such as? Other than John Yoo (Berkeley Law Prof) & Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law prof), who I've named, can you cite some of these experts and provide some indication of their operation background? That's a fallacious description – the argument *for* torture rests on it being effective in cases in which traditional methods do not work. It’s not. By your thinking dipping suspects in chocolate & rolling them in coconut may also be effective. So might tickling them. Subjecting them to rap/rock/country/blue grass or techno music or repeated episodes of Sex & the City/Colbert Report/Ellen Degeneres Show/A-team/Battlestar Gallatica/Japanese anime. Any new or previously discredited method *might* work. There's as much evidence to support & suggest all of those methods as effective for interrogation as torture. (Hollywood depictions may be highly entertaining, but that is not "evidence.") By your argument, which is completely contradictory to every credible operational source available, any of those might be “effective.” Should US interogation policy be based on "hey, let's try this"? [edit to add:] One more example of a credible operational expert stating explicitly that torture is not effective for interrogation, (as well as addressing foreign policy & normative reasons to oppose torture): LTG Harry E. Soyster, USA (ret) and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), i.e., the Defense Department's lead intelligece agency, & Commanding General of Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM): “If they think these methods ["enhanced interrogation," i.e., torture] work, they're woefully misinformed. Torture is counterproductive on all fronts. It produces bad intelligence. It ruins the subject, makes them useless for further interrogation. And it damages our credibility around the world.” Why are you so gung-ho on torture? Is it purely partisan support of current President Administration politics? You seem too smart to be part of the “Jack Bauer-wanna-be” crowd. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's worth crunching the numbers and considering the value as to how those areas function as quasi-conservation easements & provide habitats, in odd-shaped & small parcels. In Illinois, some of the best preserved prairie grassland is alongside old rail lines. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

But who has the bigger fork? (Since we can't take dinnerware/butter knives on planes anymore.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

“‘America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq,’ said Abdul Basit, the head of Iraq's Supreme Board of Audit, an independent body that oversees Iraqi government spending. ‘This is an immoral request because we didn't ask them to come to Iraq, and before they came in 2003 we didn't have all these needs.’” At the same time the US Congress will be voting (as early as next week) on a $108B supplemental bill for OIF & OEF. During his April Congressional testimony, Ambassador Crocker noted that due to the increase in oil prices Iraq is likely to see $70B in oil-related revenue. (The overall Iraqi budget is less than $50B.) The request that Mr. Basit mentioned is actions by Congress (not the DoD or the President’s office). Last week the “Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) approved legislation that would prohibit the Defense Department from funding any [individual] reconstruction or infrastructure program that costs more than $2 million” as well as suspending payment for the Concerned Local Citizens (aka the “Sons of Iraq”) groups. (NB: any money would still have to go through an appropriation committee.) Should Iraq be responsible for cost-sharing on on security, stabilization, & transition (i.e., the CLCs) and/or reconstruction? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Last week the US Department of State delivered to Congress (per US law) and released to the public its Country Reports On Terrorism 2007 report. It’s pretty extensive – country and terrorists group assessments on the usual ‘suspects’ as well as some less obvious ones. It also has a strategic assessment. Highlights (imo) from the Strategic Assessment: “Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and associated networks remained the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners in 2007. It has reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities through the exploitation of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), replacement of captured or killed operational lieutenants, and the restoration of some central control by its top leadership, in particular Ayman al-Zawahiri. Although Usama bin Ladin remained the group’s ideological figurehead, Zawahiri has emerged as AQ’s strategic and operational planner.” “2007 was marked by the affiliation of regional insurgent groups with AQ, notably the growing threat in North Africa posed by the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat’s (GSPC) September 2006 merger with AQ, which resulted in GSPC renaming itself al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). AQIM is still primarily focused on the Algerian government, but its target set is broader than it was prior to the merger.” “At the same time, the alliance of convenience and mutual exploitation between al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) and many Sunni populations there has deteriorated. The Baghdad Security Plan, initiated in February, along with assistance from primarily Sunni tribal and local groups has succeeded in reducing violence to late 2005 levels, has disrupted and diminished AQI infrastructure, and has driven some surviving AQI fighters from Baghdad and Al Anbar into the northern Iraqi provinces of Ninawa, Diyala, and Salah ad Din.” “The late 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia and subsequent deployment of AU forces there have kept AQ East Africa leadership, and elements of the Council of Islamic Courts that harbored them, on the run. Intense militancy against the Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces continued, reinforcing the early 2007 call to action by AQ through Ayman al-Zawahiri. In an Internet video released in January 2007, al-Zawahiri urged all mujahedin, specifically those in the Maghreb, to extend support to Somali Muslims in a holy war against the occupying Ethiopian forces.” “Throughout 2007, AQ increased propaganda efforts seeking to inspire support in Muslim populations, undermine Western confidence, and enhance the perception of a powerful worldwide movement. Terrorists consider information operations a principal part of their effort. Use of the Internet for propaganda, recruiting, fundraising and, increasingly, training, has made the Internet a “virtual safe haven.” International intervention in Iraq continued to be exploited by AQ as a rallying cry for radicalization and terrorist activity, as were other conflicts such as Afghanistan and Sudan. The international community has yet to muster a coordinated and effectively resourced program to counter extremist propaganda.” “2007 witnessed the continuation of the transition from expeditionary to guerilla terrorism highlighted in Country Reports on Terrorism 2006. Through intermediaries, web-based propaganda, exploitation of local grievances, and subversion of immigrant and expatriate populations, terrorists inspired local cells to carry out attacks which they then exploit for propaganda purposes. We have seen a substantial increase in the number of self-identified groups with links (communications, training, and financial) to AQ leadership in Pakistan. These “guerilla” terrorist groups harbor ambitions of a spectacular attack, including acquisition and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” “Iran remained the most significant state sponsor of terrorism. A critically important element of Iranian national security strategy is its ability to conduct terrorist operations abroad.” “Hizballah, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, is key to Iran’s terrorism strategy. Iran also continued to threaten its neighbors and destabilize Iraq by providing weapons, training, and funding to select Iraqi Shia militants.” “In Colombia, the FARC exemplified another trend: growing links between terrorist and other criminal activity. The FARC, which continued to hold hundreds of hostages, including three American citizens captive for more than four years, raised more than an estimated $60 million per year from narcotics trafficking.” “There were significant achievements in this area this year against terrorist leadership targets, notably the capture or killing of key terrorist leaders in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Iraq, and the Philippines. These efforts buy us time to carry out the most important elements of a comprehensive counterterrorist strategy: disrupting terrorist operations, including their communications, propaganda and subversion efforts; planning and fundraising; and eliminating the conditions that terrorists exploit.” “Radicalization of immigrant populations, youth and alienated minorities in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa continued. But it became increasingly clear that radicalization to violent extremism does not occur by accident, or because such populations are innately prone to extremism. Rather, we saw increasing evidence of terrorists and extremists manipulating the grievances of alienated youth or immigrant populations, and then cynically exploiting those grievances to subvert legitimate authority and create unrest. We also note a “self-radicalization” process of youths reaching out to extremists in order to become involved in the broader AQ fight.” Recommendations, or what the report calls “DEFEATING AN AGILE TERRORIST ENEMY” [caps in the original] “Responding to terrorist groups that have many of the characteristics of a global insurgency – propaganda campaigns, grass roots support, and political and territorial ambitions, though ill-defined, requires a comprehensive response. Successful methods include a focus on protecting and securing the population; and politically and physically marginalizing the insurgents, winning the support and cooperation of at-risk populations by targeted political and development measures, and conducting precise intelligence-led special operations to eliminate critical enemy elements with minimal collateral damage.” “Counter-radicalization is a key policy priority for the United States, particularly in Europe, given the potential of Europe-based violent extremism to threaten the United States and its key interests directly. The leaders of AQ and its affiliates are extremely interested in recruiting terrorists from and deploying terrorists to Europe, people familiar with Western cultures who can travel freely. Countering such efforts demands that we treat immigrant and youth populations not as a source of threat to be defended against, but as a target of enemy subversion to be protected and supported.” “The key success factor in confronting violent extremism is the commitment by governments to work with each other, with the international community, with private sector organizations, and with their citizens and immigrant populations. Local communities are also a vital part of countering radicalization strategies.” ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ I largely concur with the State Dept assessment and very much support the recommendations. Would like to see more recognition of the importance of Africa but recognize the political dynamics at play at Foggy Bottom. Not displeased with the Global Challenge of WMD Terrorism section, either. Even, New Zealand gets a mention – mostly for counterterrorism efforts. Last week I had lunch with the New Zealand Ambassador to the US (who married an American girl and did his grad work at U of Pennsylvania). He noted recognition of 9-11 as a turning point for New Zealand’s security policy. In making the case for radical Islam as a global threat, he noted that there was one New Zealand national in the WTC and another on fight 93. He also noted something that was cited in the State Dept report: “New Zealand remained active in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, working with coalition partners in undertaking Maritime Security Operations. New Zealand commands the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan's Bamiyan Province, as part of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).” This kind of collaborative, coalition work cited in the State Dept report and that Amb Ferguson spoke of is one piece of the work needed to implement the recommendations … but I am less than sure (to put it diplomatically) that traditional military-military cooperation is the most effective way or even ‘an’ effective way to accomplish the types of policy in the recommendations. Chapter 5 Section 3 discusses “Collaboration with Saudi Arabia" including a number of well-presented efforts by the Saudi Govt to decrease terrorism. The section concludes “More needs to be done in terms of reducing the flow of money and foreign fighters to Iraq. To combat terrorist financing, Saudi Arabia has instituted new anti-money laundering and counterterrorism finance laws and regulations including removing charity boxes from mosques, restricting the amount of cash that can be carried into or out of the Kingdom, and establishing a Financial Investigations Unit (FIU) in the Ministry of Interior to investigate money-laundering cases and to consolidate all counterterrorism financing operations, both analysis and investigations.” I would have liked to have seen a more comprehensive set of recommendation, but again appreciate diplomatic dynamics … still did Saudi Arabia get off ‘too easily’ in the State Dept’s report? In reading the highlights above or the full document, do you think we (however you want to define “we”) are winning the “Global War on Terrorism”? Would we even know until many years have passed? “Big” Al Qa’eda’s (i.e., Osama bin Laden & near associates) capabilities have decreased, unquestionably. The State Dept report suggests they are "reconstituting." Are we (again however you want to define “we”) winning the fight against the spread of radical Islam & the global Salafists, i.e., those who want to return the world to a notional 7th Century CE caliphate? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Actually, I have provided and continue to do so significant evidence. You tried to selectively cull one quote and I challenged you on it. If you don’t like it or disagree, that’s fine. One of those cool things about America ... & arguing on the internet. Doesn’t make your assertions accurate or defendable, altho’ I’ve asked twice now for some evidence to support your position. Concur. If that was an accurate portrayal of the argument put forth. It isn't tho.' Let’s go back to post #1. I cited 4 reasons to oppose torture. The first was its ineffectiveness compared to non-torture based interrogation methods. The second was "it endangers US & allie [sic ... should have been "allied" - that was my mistake] uniformed service members with the risk of reciprocal treatment (or as GEN Colin Powell (ret) wrote in a letter to Sen McCain on redefining Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions: weakening prohibitions on torture 'put our own troops at risk')". I thought I was clear that Gen Powell's letter was w/r/t the reciprocal treatment of uniformed service members/our POWs reason. I will try to be more clear in the future. No one has challenged argument #2 (unless I missed, which is entirely possible.) (The third & fourth reasons were “it's counterproductive w/r/t pursuit of US foreign policy goals, and it is wrong normatively.”) To specifically address the issue of GEN Colin Powell & ineffectiveness of torture as an interrogation methods, one example comes from his now-disavowed speech to the United Nations before the Iraq War. Information w/r/t Iraq training al Qa’eda representative in chemical and biological weapons obtained under torture (not while under US detainment) from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior Al Qaeda leader, is now known to be non-factual (at the time CIA & DIA folks questioned the credibility). Gen Powell has challenged publically the usefulness of information obtained at Guantanamo, as well as making cases against torture on the other three arguments. (If I can argue more than one reason, should we not assume that he can as well?) In my initial response (post # 32) addressing of ineffectiveness of torture I intentionally cited military, intelligence community, and domestic LEO operators. To cite another source, who is more of the “scholar behind the desk,” Prof Alfred McCoy (History, U Wisconsin-Madison) in his book, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror, points out that there is little evidence that useful information is gleaned from torture and discusses one of the oft-cited anecdotes: “This scenario still rests on the critical, utterly unexamined assumption that torture can get useful intelligence quickly from this or any hardened terrorist. “Advocates of the ticking bomb often cite the brutal torture of Abdul Hakim Murad in Manila in 1995, which they say stopped a plot to blow up a dozen trans-Pacific aircraft and kill 4,000 innocent passengers. Except, of course, for the simple fact that Murad’s torture did nothing of the sort. Manila police got all their important information from Murad in the first few minutes when they seized his laptop with the entire bomb plot. All the supposed details gained from the sixty-seven days of incessant beatings, spiced by techniques like cigarettes to the genitals, were, as one Filipino officer testified in a New York court, fabrications fed to Murad by Philippine police. Conversely, he notes “There is, in fact, a well-established American alternative to torture that we might call empathetic interrogation. U.S. Marines first used this technique during World War II to extract accurate intelligence from fanatical Japanese captives on Saipan and Tinian within forty-eight hours of landing, and the FBI has practiced it with great success in the decades since. After the East Africa bombings of U.S. embassies, the bureau employed this method to gain some of our best intelligence on Al Qaeda and win U.S. court convictions of all of the accused.” That is, effective interrogation does not equal torture. Rather the data, the historical evidence, and the experts (scholarly, "desk warriors," and real warrior/warfighter types) assert torture is not effective. Thus far, as far as I can tell, your argument against that body of evidence has been that it’s an organized sustained & perpetuated scenario among all those folks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Ignoring the issue (huge on its own) of what part & when US strategy "failed" in Iraq, the only or best alternative to traditional state-on-state or peer-competitor military operations is not catastrophic anhiliation. Especially 5 years after an invasion. Another option, probably more effective (need another thread), is counterinsurgency strategy, i.e., the kind espoused by LTC John Nagl (USA), GEN David Petraeus (USA), LTG John Amos (USMC), and Prof Sarah Sewell (among others), to enable security, stability, transition, and reconstruction (SSTR) operations. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying